SECOND DIVISION
ESTATE OF
TARCILA VDA. DE
VILLEGAS,
Petitioner,
- versus - G.R. No. 143006
JESUS R. GABOYA, JOSE CUENCO
BORROMEO, and RICARDO V. Present:
REYES, in their capacity as
Administrators
of the Intestate Estate PUNO,
J., Chairperson,
of Vito Borromeo, CESAR GILLAMAC, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
in his
capacity as the Register of Deeds
of
BORROMEO,
MARIA B. PUTONG, GARCIA,
JJ.
FEDERICO
V. BORROMEO, JOSE
BORROMEO,
CONSUELO V.
BORROMEO,
CANUTO V. Promulgated:
BORROMEO,
JR., PATROCINIO B.
HERRERA, EMILIO A. BORROMEO, JR., July 14, 2006
CORAZON
A. BORROMEO, EDUARDO
BORROMEO,
TOMAS BORROMEO,
AMELIA
BORROMEO, COSME
BORROMEO,
JOSE
ANTONIO BORROMEO,
VITALIANA
BORROMEO VDA. DE
LEONTING,
JOSE C. BORROMEO,
FORTUNATO
BORROMEO, AMELINDA
B.
TALAM, ANGELITA BORROMEO,
MARIA B. VDA. DE REUNILLA,
JOSEFINA BORROMEO NERI,
PRESCILLANO TITO BORROMEO,
AMELIA R. BORROMEO, ESTATE OF
SALUD BORROMEO, MARIA B.
ATEGA,
SISTER ROSARIO BORROMEO,
SISTER
LUZ BORROMEO, HERMINIGILDA
NONNENKAMP, FE BORROMEO
QUEROS, HON. FERNANDO RUIZ,
HON. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ATTY.
FILIBERTO LEONARDO, ATTY.
NAZARIO PACQUIAO, ATTY.
CIPRIANO RACAZA, ATTY. EMILIO
BENITEZ,
JR., ATTY. CASTOR Y.
HONTANOSAS, ATTY. BENJAMIN
RALLON,
ATTY. CALIXTO P.
VALLENTE,
ATTY. GAUDISIO C.
VILLAGONZALO, HON. ALFREDO
BENIPAYO, ATTY. CESAR
GONZALES,
ATTY. NICOLAS JUMAPAO, ATTY.
RAUL SESBRENO, ATTY. MIGUEL
CUENCO, ATTY. FILEMON
FERNANDEZ, ATTY. QUIRICO
MAR, ATTY. DOMINGO
ATTY. VICENTE JAYME, ATTY.
MERCADO ZOSA, ATTY. FRANCIS
ZOSA, ANGELO ZOSA, LORNA
ZOSA, ZONIA ZOSA, NORA ZOSA,
ROLANDO ZOSA, ELBERT ZOSA,
EVELYN ZOSA, JOCELYN ZOSA,
MANUEL
ZOSA, JR., and MA.
Respondents.
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA,
J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari of the Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 57852 promulgated on
The
antecedents are as follows:
Vito
Borromeo and Juliana Evangelista were husband and wife. Juliana died intestate on
Special Proceedings No. 916-R
On
April 19, 1952, Jose H. Junquera filed in the
Court of First Instance of Cebu a petition for the probate of a document,
purportedly Vito Borromeo’s will,
devising all his properties to Tomas, Fortunato and Amelia, all surnamed
Borromeo, in equal and undivided shares, and
designating Junquera as executor. On
Special
Proceedings No. 916-R was converted into an intestate proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of Vito Borromeo.
Several persons appeared before the court claiming to be heirs of Vito
Borromeo.
On
On April 21 and 30, 1969, the
declared heirs, except for Patrocinio B. Herrera, signed an agreement to
partition the properties of the deceased Vito Borromeo. The agreement was approved by the trial court
in its Order of
On
On
August 25, 1972, Fortunato Borromeo, who had earlier
claimed to be an heir under the forged will, filed a motion before the trial
court praying that he be declared as one of the heirs of the deceased Vito
Borromeo, alleging that he is an illegitimate son of the deceased and that in
the declaration of heirs made by the trial court, he was omitted, in disregard
of the law making him a forced heir entitled to receive a legitime like all
other forced heirs.
On
Fortunato filed a motion for
reconsideration, and claimed that in a Waiver of Hereditary Rights dated
In an Order dated
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the
same was certified to this Court as only questions of law were involved. The case, docketed as G.R. No. L-41174, was decided together with four other cases[2] stemming from Special Proceedings No. 916-R in
Borromeo-Herrera v. Borromeo[3] promulgated on
WHEREFORE, --
(1)
In G.R. No. 41171, the order of the respondent judge
dated December 24, 1974, declaring the respondent entitled to 5/9 of the estate
of the late Vito Borromeo and the order dated July 7, 1975, denying the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned order are hereby
SET ASIDE for being NULL and VOID;
(2)
In G.R. No. 55000, the order of the trial court
declaring the waiver document valid is hereby SET ASIDE;
(3)
In G.R. No. 63818, the petition is hereby DENIED. The
issue in the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court disqualifying and
ordering the inhibition of Judge Francisco P. Burgos from further hearing
Special Proceedings No. 916-R is declared moot and academic. The judge who has taken over the sala of
retired Judge Francisco P. Burgos shall immediately conduct hearings with a
view to terminating the proceedings. In
the event that the successor-judge is likewise disqualified, the order of the
Intermediate Appellate Court directing the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu to re-raffle the case shall be implemented;
(4)
In G.R. No. 65995, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The issue seeking to restrain Judge Francisco
P. Burgos from further acting in G.R. No. 63818 is MOOT and ACADEMIC;
(5)
In G.R. No.
62895, the trial court is hereby ordered to speedily terminate the (sic)
close Special Proceedings No. 916-R, subject to the submission of an inventory
of the real properties of the estate and an accounting of the cash and bank
deposits by the petitioner-administrator
of the estate as required by this Court in its Resolution dated June 15, 1983;
and
(6)
The portion of the Order of
SO ORDERED.[4]
On
May 29, 1989, herein petitioner filed a Motion to Liquidate the Conjugal Properties and
Separate Paraphernal Properties of the Wife of Decedent Vito Borromeo during the pendency of Special Proceedings No.
916-R at the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. Petitioner also filed a motion for
resolution. Both motions were denied by
the trial court in its Order of
On October 31, 1989, petitioner filed with
the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with a prayer for injunction seeking
the annulment and setting aside of the trial court’s Order dated August
25, 1989. The petition was docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 19284, entitled Estate of Tarcila Vda. de
Villegas v. Honorable German Lee, et al.
In a Decision[5]
promulgated on
On
Civil Case
No.
R-11841
Meantime, on
On
WHEREFORE, in view of the
fact that the plaintiff has not pursued her claims properly, by filing an
intervention in Sp. Proc. No. 916 and on account of laches, the plaintiff’s
claim in this case may be deemed to have been barred by laches as held in the
case of Go Chi Gun & Go Away, et al. versus Go Cho, 96 Phil. 622. This Court also hereby resolves to dismiss
this case for having become moot and academic by virtue of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the five enumerated cases in relation to Sp. Proc. No. 916.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[7]
On
Petitioner appealed to the Court of
Appeals. In a Decision[8] dated
In a Resolution dated
Raul Sesbreno
filed before this Court a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated
While some defendants filed their
respective Answers and counterclaims with the trial court, defendants Jose
Borromeo, Maria B. Putong, Federico Borromeo, Consuelo Borromeo, Benjamin S.
Rallon, and the Estate of Salud Borromeo filed on
On
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing considerations, this Court resolves to finally DISMISS
this case on the grounds of prescription, laches and estoppel and, that the
cause of action is now barred by a prior judgment.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Petitioner appealed to the Court of
Appeals. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the following grounds:
(a) Appellant did not state in the
caption all the names of the defendants-appellees who number more that 50 in
all in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 44 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) appellant failed to follow Sec. 4,[12]
Rule 41, Rules of Civil Procedure; and (c) appellant failed to follow Sec. 13 (a), (c) and (d), Rule 44 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the motion.
In a Resolution promulgated on July
28, 1999 in CA-G.R. CV No. 57852, the Court of Appeals stated that appellant (petitioner) validly
refuted the first two grounds, but failed
to justify its non-compliance with the third ground, that is, compliance
with paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of Sec. 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court of Appeals found, thus:
A
perusal of the appellant’s brief reveals that it does not have a subject index
with a digest of the arguments and page references, a table of cases
alphabetically arranged; under the heading ”Statement of the
Case” there is no statement as to the summary of the proceedings, the appealed
rulings and orders of the court; and there is no “Statement of the Facts”
showing a clear and concise statement in a narrative form the facts admitted by
both parties and those in controversy in clear violation of the Revised Rules
of Court, thereby warranting dismissal of the appeal. The appeal can even be considered as
dilatory.[13]
The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE,
the motion to dismiss appeal is granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED.[14]
In a Resolution[15]
dated
On
Petitioner raises the following
issues:
I
WHETHER
OR NOT THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF IN CA-G.R. CV NO. 57852 SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 13 (A), (C) AND (D) RULE 44 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER DATED
Petitioner contends that it has
substantially complied with the requirements of Sec. 13 (a), (c) and (d), Rule
44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It prays for a liberal construction of the
Rules in accordance with Sec. 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court in order to
promote its objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive determination
of every action and proceeding.
An examination of the Appellant’s
Brief shows that, indeed, petitioner failed to comply with the requirements
of Sec. 13 (a), (c) and (d), Rule 44 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
SEC. 13. Contents
of appellant’s brief.--The appellant’s brief shall contain, in the order
herein indicated, the following:
(a)
A subject index of the matter in the brief with a
digest of the arguments and page references, and a table of cases
alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the pages where they are cited;
x x
x
(c)
Under the heading “Statement of the Case,” a clear and
concise statement of the nature of the action, a summary of the proceedings,
the appealed rulings and orders of the court, the nature of the judgment and
any other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the
controversy, with page references to the record;
(d) Under the heading “Statement of Facts,” a clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the substance of the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with page references to the record.
The Appellant’s Brief does not have a
subject index of the matter in the brief as specified in Sec. 13 (a), Rule 44
of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the Statement of the Case has no statement of
the summary of the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of the court,
with page references to the record as required by Sec. 13 (c), Rule 44 of the
Rules of Court. Further, the Appellant’s Brief has no portion entitled “Statement
of Facts,” and, therefore, no clear and concise statement in narrative form of
the facts admitted by both parties and those in controversy, with page
references to the record, in violation of Sec. 13 (d), Rule 44 of the Rules of
Court.
The Court of Appeals was, therefore,
justified in dismissing the appeal under Sec. 1 (f), Rule 50 of the Rules of
Court, thus:
SEC. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. –An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
x x x
(f)
Absence of specific assignment of
errors in the appellant’s brief or of page references to the record as required in section 13,
paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule
44.[17]
In Del Rosario v. Court of
Appeals[18] and Bucad
v. Court of Appeals,[19]
the Court dismissed the appeal for a similar violation by the appellants of
Sec. 1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
The right to appeal is a statutory
right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must faithfully comply with
the rules.[20] Petitioner’s plea for liberal application of
the rules would mean deviation from the aforementioned rules, which cannot be
tolerated. These rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of
appealed cases.[21]
As a result, there is no need to
discuss the second issue raised by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated
Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Associate Justice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] No.
L-18498, 19
SCRA 656.
[2] Docketed as G.R. No. L-55000, G.R. No. L-62895, G.R. No. L-63818 and
G.R. No. L-65995.
[3] G.R.
No. L-41174, G.R.
No. L-55000, G.R.
No. L-62895, G.R.
No. L-63818 and G.R. No. L-65995,
[4]
[5] Records,
Vol. IV, p. 2.
[6] Tarcila died on
[7] CA
Decision, CA-G.R. CV No. 21826, Rollo, p. 83.
[8]
[9] Also spelled as “Sesbreño.”
[10] Records,
Vol. IV, p. 13.
[11]
[12] SEC. 4. Appellate
court docket and other lawful fees.—Within the period for taking an appeal,
the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment
or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and
other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the
appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal.
[13] Rollo, p. 43.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Underscoring supplied.
[18] G.R.
No. 113890,
[19] G.R.
No. 93783,
[20] Supra,
note 18, at 557.
[21] Ibid.