[ Manila Bulletin Online ] April 24, 2008
By REY G. PANALIGAN
Setting aside procedural technicality, the Supreme Court (SC) has reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) and ordered the reinstatement of the case filed by 17 heirs claiming ownership over their supposedly inherited property in Tacloban City.
In a decision written by Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, the SC said that "when a rigid application of the rules tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, this court is empowered to suspend their operation."
With the ruling, the case that had been dismissed by the CA for failure of the heirs to file the necessary pleadings was tossed back to the appellate court for further proceedings.
Given another chance to litigate their case were Gregorio, Exequiel, and Clara, all surnamed Ramirez; Natividad G. Lazaro, Julia G. Fadri, Estela G. Gaviola, Luz G. Legaspi, Norberta and Roberta Daaco, Genarda G. Cuartel, Lorenzo Gerez, Natalio Daaco, Rosario P. Soyosa, Sergia Contillo, Luciano Beltran, and Constantino, Felisa, and Gabriel, all surnamed Pretencio, who are all the heirs of spouses Victoriana Villagracia and Francisco Contillo.
They claimed that the deed of absolute sale over four parcels of land in Tacloban City was executed more than 12 years after the death of Victoriana whose signature was allegedly forged.
They lost in the case they filed before the Tacloban City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in 1989, prompting them to elevate the issue before the CA.
At the CA, the heirs were thrice granted extension of time to file the necessary pleadings to perfect their appeal but they failed each time to meet the deadline. The CA dismissed their case. When their motion for reconsideration was denied, they elevated the case to the SC.
Resolving in favor of the heirs, the SC took note of the difficulty they encountered in securing the services of another lawyer after their first counsel was appointed to the judiciary and in gathering the signatures of the other heirs who live in separate farflung places.
The SC said, "We are aware of the procedural violations of the petitioners (heirs). However, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be better served if it is determined on the merits, after full opportunity is given to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections."
"Judicial action must be guided by the principle that a party-litigant should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor, or property on technicalities," it said.
"In the case at bench, without touching on the merits of the case, there appears a good and efficient cause to warrant the suspension of the rules. Petitioners’ failure to file the appeal brief within the extended period may have been rendered excusable by force of circumstance."
____________________________________________________________________
