Aportadera v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a parcel of land in Davao City. Respondent Jose S. Joaquin, as judicial administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Helen Corrales-Joaquin, filed a civil case for quieting of title and reconveyance against petitioner Abelardo Aportadera, Jr. Joaquin alleged that a portion of his land, covered by Free Patent 526491 and OCT No. P-3301, had been fraudulently included in Aportadera's title (OCT No. P-3321, Free Patent No. 530218). Petitioners had previously moved to dismiss the civil case in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Davao City, raising grounds of lack of jurisdiction, cause of action, estoppel, prescription, and Joaquin's lack of legal personality to sue. The CFI denied these motions, deferring the determination of the grounds until trial. 2. Procedural History: Following the CFI's denial of their motions to dismiss, petitioners Abelardo Aportadera, Sr., Abelardo Aportadera, Jr., and Ruben C. Batoy filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. No. Sp-03481-R. They sought to question the CFI's jurisdiction and the denial of their dismissal motions. On October 10, 1974, the CA denied due course to their petition, finding that the dispute between title holders of already patented lands fell within the trial court's jurisdiction and that the action for reconveyance was filed within the prescriptive period, deeming the prohibition against conveyance within five years inapplicable. A copy of this resolution was sent to petitioners' counsel via registered mail. For failure to file a motion for reconsideration, the resolution became final and executory on November 26, 1974, and an entry of judgment was issued. Petitioners later received a copy of the entry of judgment on April 16, 1975, and subsequently filed a motion to vacate the entry of judgment, claiming their counsel had not received the resolution denying due course. The CA denied this motion, noting the registered letter was returned unclaimed. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioners are now before the Supreme Court, reiterating their claim that their counsel never received the Court of Appeals' resolution denying due course to their petition. They argue that the registered mail was addressed to a P.O. Box that was not their counsel's official address of record and was allegedly closed during the relevant period. They also point to an inquiry letter sent to the CA regarding the petition's status as evidence of their lack of knowledge. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition to be without merit, upholding the CA's findings. The Court gave credence to the postmaster's certification that notices were sent and that the P.O. Box address, which was also used in other correspondence received by counsel, was a valid means of ensuring delivery. The Court presumed the official duty of the postmaster was regularly performed and considered the petitioners' claim about the P.O. Box being closed as an afterthought. Applying Section 8, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court ruled that service became effective upon the expiration of the five-day period to claim the registered mail, making the CA's resolution final and executory due to the petitioners' failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying due course to the petition became final and executory despite the petitioners' counsel claiming non-receipt of the registered mail containing the resolution. Whether the service of the resolution by registered mail was validly effected.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The questioned resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the resolution became final and executory despite the claim of non-receipt: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the registered mail containing the resolution denying due course was returned unclaimed. The Court emphasized that service by registered mail is deemed effective upon the expiration of the five-day period from receipt of the postmaster's notice, or upon the return of the unclaimed mail. Since the petitioners' counsel failed to claim the mail within the prescribed period, service was validly effected. The resolution thus became final and executory, leaving the Court of Appeals with no recourse but to issue the entry of judgment. The Court found no considerations of substantial justice that would warrant setting aside the pertinent rules. On the issue of the validity of service by registered mail: The Court held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by postal authorities prevails over the claim of non-receipt by the petitioners' counsel. The Court noted that the address used by the CA, including the P.O. Box, was taken from the petitioners' own pleadings and correspondence, and that the addition of the P.O. Box was intended to ensure delivery. The Court found the petitioners' claim that the P.O. Box was closed to be an afterthought, as it was not raised in earlier pleadings. Therefore, the service of the resolution was validly made.
Main Doctrine
Service of resolutions by registered mail is deemed effective upon the expiration of the five-day period from receipt of notice by the addressee, or upon the unclaimed mail being returned to the sender, even if the addressee claims non-receipt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by postal authorities prevails over the claim of non-receipt by counsel.