De Grano v. Lacaba
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Gregorio Lacaba filed a complaint for forcible entry against petitioner Joven de Grano, claiming ownership and 30 years of physical possession of two parcels of land in Laurel, Batangas. Respondent alleged that he appointed caretakers and allowed others to build houses and conduct businesses on the property. He further alleged that petitioner, with his men, destroyed the perimeter fence, cleared the land, and demolished a house, disrupting his peaceful possession. Procedural History: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding respondent's claim of possession belied by evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MCTC decision. The RTC denied respondent's motion for reconsideration, and later amended its order to correct 'defendant' to 'plaintiff' in the dispositive portion. Respondent filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) beyond the reglementary period, counting from the amended order. The Petition: The CA reversed the MCTC and RTC decisions, ordering petitioner to vacate the premises. The CA excused the belated filing of the petition for review, finding it meritorious and that dismissing the case would not serve the ends of justice. The CA gave weight to respondent's tax declarations and the alleged fear of witnesses, discrediting petitioner's evidence. The CA also dismissed the issue of timeliness, citing estoppel and the ends of justice. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in taking cognizance of and giving due course to the petition for review filed by respondent Lacaba. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that herein respondent Lacaba is entitled to the relief being sought in the complaint filed before the MCTC. Whether or not the Court of Appeals patently erred in not finding that herein petitioner De Grano is not the real party in interest.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court reinstated the decisions of the MCTC and RTC dismissing the complaint for forcible entry.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for review with the Court of Appeals: The Court held that the CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition for review which was filed beyond the reglementary period. While rules of procedure may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice, the party invoking such liberality must explain the failure to comply and prove exceptionally meritorious circumstances. Respondent offered no explanation for the delay and incorrectly counted the reglementary period from an order that merely corrected a clerical error ('defendant' to 'plaintiff'), not a material alteration of the judgment. The period should have been counted from the receipt of the original judgment denying the motion for reconsideration. A delay of almost seven months is not reasonable. On the merits of the forcible entry case: The Court found that the MCTC and RTC were correct in dismissing the complaint. For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the complainant must prove prior physical possession and deprivation thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Respondent's evidence, consisting of tax declarations and tax payments, were not conclusive proof of physical possession. The Court cannot tack respondent's possession to that of alleged tenants without proof that these tenants acknowledged respondent as owner and occupied the property as his tenants. Such tenants could have been in adverse possession. The Court emphasized that possession in forcible entry cases means physical possession (de facto), not legal possession (de jure), and only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue. On the issue of the real party in interest: The Court found no necessity to discuss this issue, given its findings on the timeliness of the appeal and the merits of the forcible entry case. The Court noted that no substantial injustice would be caused to the respondent, as he still has another remedy to recover his alleged right to possess the property by filing an appropriate action to recover ownership.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of a petition for review filed beyond the reglementary period without a valid explanation for the delay. Tax declarations and tax payments are not conclusive proof of physical possession required in forcible entry cases. The correction of a clerical error in a judgment does not create a new judgment from which the period for appeal should be reckoned.