499 Phil. 24
GARCIA, J.:
Petitioners appealed the aforesaid decision to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which, in a decision[4] dated December 26, 1984 in AC-G.R. CV No. 57804, affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
- Lot Nos.1104 and 627 covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 11275 and RT-612(10771) now Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10005, as conjugal properties of spouses Eugenio Margate and Antonia Tolang who all died intestate and without issue;
- Extrajudicial Settlement/Partition executed by the defendants on October 17, 1966 covering Lots 1104 and 627, Dipolog Cadastre, null and void;
- The Deed of Sale executed by Felix Margate in favor of Paulina Margate on October 20, 1966 covering Lots No. 1104 and 627, null and void;
- Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-91779, covering Lot No. 627, and Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-91776 covering Lot No. 1104, null and void;
- All Certificates of Tile issued pursuant to Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-91779 and 91776, null and void and of no legal effect, consisting of the following, viz:
xxx xxx xxx
- Declaring one-half (½) of Lots No. 1104 and 627 of the Cadastral Survey of Dipolog, together with improvements thereon, to go to the plaintiffs as their lawful shares of the late Antonia Tolang; and the remaining one-half (½) share to go to the defendants as heirs of the late Eugenio Margate after deducting the 1,000 square meters which was sold to Dr. Reglino Gurdiel, known as Lot No. 1104-A-1 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-13786;
- Ordering defendants to execute the proper Deed of Conveyance of the one-half (½) share of Lots 1104 and 627 in favor of plaintiffs within fifteen (15) days from the finality of the decision, and upon failure of defendants to do so, the Clerk of Court is hereby authorized to execute the same at the expense of the defendants, to be considered as valid and legal; and the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte is hereby directed to issue the corresponding titles to each and every one of the plaintiffs upon payment of the legal fees for the one-half (½) share, and the remaining one-half (½) share to the herein defendants.
- Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the following amounts:
a) P10,000.00 to the plaintiffs for the value of one-half (½) of the produce of Lot 1104 illegally appropriated by defendants from October 1966 up to October 1974;
b) P4,800.00 to the herein plaintiffs corresponding to the one-half (½) of the rental of Lot 627 from October, 1966 up to October 1974 at the rate of P100.00 per month;
c) P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and
d) Costs.
Finding the motion for issuance of a Third Writ of Execution and Motion for Demolition to be meritorious and justified, the same is hereby GRANTED.In time, petitioners moved for a modification of the same resolution but their motion was denied by the court in its order of December 14, 1999[12].
A perusal of the instant petition reveals that:With their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court in its subsequent resolution of July 24, 2000[14], petitioners are now before this Court praying for judgment in their favor: (1) annulling and setting aside of the resolutions dated March 9, 2000 and July 20, 2000 of the Court of Appeals; and (2) ordering the Court of Appeals to give due course to their amended petition in CA G.R. SP No. 57288 and decide said petition on the merits.
The petitioners failed to indicate the material dates as to when they received the assailed resolution dated 29 October 1999 and the date when the petitioners filed the ‘Motion to Modify Order dated 29 October 1999, dated 19 November 1999 which is in effect a motion for reconsideration to determine the timeliness of the herein petition in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended by Supreme Court Circular No. 39-98 which states that:Likewise, the petitioner (sic) is short of P150.00 in the payment of docketing fee.xxx xxx xxx
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, for being insufficient in substance, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and is consequently DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
It should be stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. Rather, it is a procedural remedy of statutory origin and, as such, may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise.”[16] Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with.[17]The case under review involves a petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioners before the Court of Appeals. It is an original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus with preliminary injunction[18] filed with the Court of Appeals, governed by Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, Section 3 of which, provides:
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. – The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.The present case did not comply with the aforecited rule by failing to indicate the material dates when petitioners received the assailed resolution dated October 28, 1999. Perforce, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition pursuant to the aforequoted Section 3 of Rule 46.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.xxx xxx xxx
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.[19] (Emphasis supplied.)
Rules of procedure are tools designed to promote efficiency and orderliness as well as to facilitate attainment of justice,[21] such that strict adherence thereto is required. The application of the Rules may be relaxed only when rigidity would result in a defeat of equity and substantial justice.[22] But, petitioner has not presented any persuasive reason for this Court to be liberal, even pro hac vice. Thus, we sustain the dismissal of its petition by the Court of Appeals on technical grounds.The petition before us does not justify the relaxation of the rules, because the Court finds equity and substantial justice tilting in favor of respondents, rather than the petitioners, under the facts obtaining in this case, to wit:
xxx Mostly to be blamed for the delay in the disposition of this case particularly in the execution of judgment xxx are the Defendants (now, petitioners) who used all the legal tactics they can muster and think of, whether fair or foul, they used them to their advantage against the prevailing party – the plaintiffs (now respondents).Parenthetically, execution of judgment through an independent action is required only when it is established that the judgment has become dormant,[24] which is not the situation in this case. In a decision or during a partition, the execution of that part of the judgment which will not necessitate any further proceedings may be enforced.[25] In here, the main judgment can not be enforced yet without the necessity of conducting a survey and subdivision of Lots 1104 and 627, subject matters of this case, and the determination of which one-half (½) portion shall belong to respondents and which portion shall go to petitioners.
Every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable. This is a fundamental and immutable legal principle. For ‘(j)ust as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case’ by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the ‘life of the law’. Any attempt to thwart this rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to savour the fruit of his victory, must immediately be struck down”.Secondly, although it appeared on paper that the writ of execution dated November 22, 1985 had been duly satisfied, per handwritten certification[27] of the sheriff allegedly signed by respondents’ supposed representatives, and Sheriff’s Return dated May 8, 1986[28] submitted by Deputy Sheriff Ignacio M. Barbaso, Sr., the truth is that, the purported signatures of the parties found in the sheriff’s certification were neither the signatures of respondents nor their duly authorized representatives. The respondents were defrauded by such misrepresentations in the trial court.