Estrella v. SM Prime Holdings Inc.

 

Estrella v. SM Prime Holdings Inc.

G.R. 257814

February 20, 2023

 

FACTS:

                In 1961, a group composed of Rivera, Aquino and Angeles, claiming to be the heirs of Vidal prayed for the substitution of their names on OCT No. 994 in place of Vidal. The CFI granted this order. Thereafter, the purported heirs of Vidal filed a petition for the partition and accounting of the Maysilo Estate covered by OCT No. 994 allegedly registered on April 19, 1917. The RTC granted the petition and appointed three commissioners to determine the most equitable division of the properties. However, no recommendation was submitted. The subdivided lots were eventually sold to various transferees and became the subject of investigations both in the executive and legislative branches. Several cases were also instituted between parties claiming to have derived their respective titles from one mother title, OCT No. 994, but with two different registration dates, April 19, 1917, and May 3, 1917. In 2006, Estrella, et al., initiated a civil case for the nullification and cancellation of TCT 326321 against Gotesco. Estrella, et al., claimed to be the court-appointed representatives of the heirs of Vidal. They asserted that the alleged heirs of Vidal are the real owners of several parcels of land covered by OCT No. 994, including the subject property.

Estrella, et al., averred that on April 15, 1998, they learned that the City of Caloocan sold the subject property to Gotesco. They added that Gotesco secured a new title, TCT 326321, covering the subject property though the alleged heirs of Vidal never sold it. In 2016, Tri-City Landholdings filed a Petition for Intervention. It claimed that a Deed of Assignment was executed by Estrella, et al., as assignors, and Tri-City, as assignee, transferring the subject property in exchange for shares of Tri-City and Platinum. Trial ensued, Meanwhile, SM Prime filed a Motion for Substitution requesting that it be allowed to substitute for Gotesco as defendant in the case due to the sale of the subject property in their favor. SM Prime was permitted to substitute Gotesco. SM Prime opposed the Petition for Intervention of Tri-City, arguing that Tri-City had no ground to intervene because the subject OCT No. 994 in this case was registered on April 19, 1917, while the purported mother title from which Tri- City allegedly derived its right was OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917. RTC admitted the Petition for Intervention filed by Tri-City and denied the Motion to Dismiss filed by SM Prime for lack of merit. In 2017, SM Prime filed a Demurrer to Evidence which was granted by the RTC that effectively dismissed the complaint-in-intervention. MRs were denied, hence the appeal before the CA. CA dismissed for failure to file Appellant’s Brief on time.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the dismissal is valid.

 

HELD:

                Yes. The present Petition was still filed out of time. Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 00-2-14-SC, clarified the application of Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court in the event that the last day of filing a pleading falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, and the original period is extended. The CA correctly dismissed the Appeal of Estrella, et al., due to their failure to submit the requisite Appellants' Brief. Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court provides that “it shall be the duty of the appellant to file with the court, within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice of the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, are attached to the record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.” In the instant case, Estrella et al filed their Brief six months upon receipt of notification.