Dadizon v. Mocorro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a dispute over a 78-square meter parcel of land. The respondents, Spouses Dominador and Elsa Mocorro, initiated the action in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against the petitioners, Spouses Nestor and Felicidad Dadizon, seeking to recover the disputed land and cancel the Dadizons' tax declaration, along with claiming damages. The Mocorros traced their claim to a series of transactions originating from Ignacia Bernal, who had sold portions of her land to various individuals, eventually culminating in the sale of 224 square meters to the Mocorros on June 2, 1973. The Mocorros' ownership was evidenced by successive tax declarations, with the area of their land consistently recorded as 224 square meters until 1984. In contrast, the Dadizons first declared their property, an adjoining lot, in 1980, with their tax declaration indicating the Mocorros' property as the eastern boundary. The dispute arose when the Mocorros' land area was reduced to 146 square meters in 1984, excluding the 78 square meters now occupied by the Dadizons. 2. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the Mocorros on December 6, 1999, declaring them owners of the 78-square meter lot and ordering the Dadizons to vacate and demolish any structures. The MTC found the Dadizons' claim of acquisition from Eustaquia Bernadas in 1976 to be inconsistent and lacking proper notarization, suggesting it was an attempt to predate their claim. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), on appeal, affirmed the MTC's decision on May 17, 2001, giving great weight to the trial court's factual findings. The Dadizons then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Mocorros moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the Dadizons had used the wrong mode of appeal. The CA granted the motion and dismissed the Dadizons' appeal on February 26, 2003, and subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration on June 30, 2003. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Spouses Nestor and Felicidad Dadizon, have filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court to challenge the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their appeal and the denial of their motion for reconsideration. They contend that the CA erred in dismissing their appeal. The core of their argument, however, is implicitly tied to their claim of ownership over the 78-square meter lot. The Supreme Court, in its review, found that the Dadizons' chosen mode of appeal to the CA was indeed incorrect, as they should have filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, not a notice of appeal, given that the RTC had ruled in its appellate capacity. The Court also addressed the merits of the case, finding that even if the appeal had been properly filed, the outcome would still favor the Mocorros due to the Mocorros' established chain of ownership and possession, and the Dadizons' reliance on an unnotarized and unregistered deed of sale, which is not valid against third parties.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Dadizons' appeal via notice of appeal instead of a petition for review. Whether the Mocorros have a better right to the 78-square meter lot.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing the Dadizons' appeal and denying their motion for reconsideration. The Court found the petition for review on certiorari to be without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the appeal to the Court of Appeals: The Court held that the Dadizons' mode of appeal to the Court of Appeals was erroneous. Since the RTC rendered the decision in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the appeal should have been filed through a petition for review in accordance with Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. An appeal by notice of appeal is the proper mode for appeals from RTC decisions rendered in the exercise of original jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the rules on the manner and period of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, and that liberal construction cannot be used to disregard these rules. The dismissal of the appeal by the CA was therefore proper under Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which mandates dismissal of an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from an appellate judgment of an RTC. On the ownership of the 78-square meter lot: Even if the appeal were treated as proper, the outcome would still favor the Mocorros. The Court gave weight to the concurrent factual findings of the MTC and RTC. The Mocorros presented solid evidence of their ownership, tracing their title from Ignacia Bernal through mesne conveyances to them in 1973, supported by tax declarations and a mortgage annotated on their tax declaration. In contrast, the Dadizons' claim was based on an unnotarized deed of sale from Eustaquia Bernadas, Felicidad Dadizon's mother, dated March 10, 1976. The MTC found this acquisition to be feigned, intended to make it appear that the document was executed on the date mentioned. Furthermore, the Dadizons declared the disputed portion for the first time in 1980, and their tax declaration indicated it was 'NEW' and subject to verification, lacking prior tax declarations. The Court reiterated that the mere execution of a deed of sale for unregistered land is not enough to bind third persons; registration is the operative act. The unrecorded deed of sale in favor of the Dadizons was thus res inter alios acta as far as the Mocorros were concerned. The affidavit of adjoining owners was also deemed self-serving and executed for a different purpose.
Main Doctrine
The mere execution of a deed of sale covering an unregistered parcel of land is not enough to bind third persons; registration is the operative act to convey or affect unregistered land insofar as third persons are concerned. Furthermore, the mode of appeal from a Regional Trial Court decision exercising appellate jurisdiction must be a petition for review, not a notice of appeal.