Mascariñas v. Bank of the Philippine Islands Family Savings Bank, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. obtained a writ of possession from the Regional Trial Court-Quezon City, Branch 215, for Lot 3-30-C-2, previously owned by Josephine Abila and covered by TCT No. N-266377. When the sheriff attempted to implement the writ, petitioner Remedios Mascarinas intervened, asserting that the property was hers, Lot 3-30-C-1, measuring 1,552 square meters and covered by TCT No. T-142901, which she acquired in 2007. She claimed the bank's property had become part of Galino Street. Mascarinas moved to quash the writ, submitting a sketch plan from the Land Registration Authority, while the bank presented a relocation survey identifying its lot. Procedural History: The trial court denied Mascarinas's motion to quash the writ of possession, noting the different titles and technical descriptions of the two lots. Subsequent motions for clarification and reconsideration were also denied. Mascarinas then sought an extension of fifteen days from the Court of Appeals to file a petition for certiorari, citing her counsel's heavy workload. The Court of Appeals denied this motion, referencing Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and the case of Mid-Islands Power Generation Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al. Mascarinas filed her petition anyway, along with a motion to admit it, reiterating her counsel's circumstances and invoking the possibility of an extension under SC Administrative Memo No. 00-2-03. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied her motion to admit and her motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Mascarinas seeks affirmative relief from the Supreme Court, requesting that her petition for certiorari, filed on July 19, 2016, be admitted. She argues that her counsel's demanding workload, failing health, old age, and long commutes necessitated a fifteen-day extension to file the petition, and that the strict application of the sixty-day reglementary period should be relaxed to prevent irreparable damage to her property rights due to what she alleges is an erroneous implementation of the writ of possession. The bank opposes, emphasizing the need to adhere to the reglementary period to prevent abuse and delay, citing Laguna Metis Corp. v. CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the grant of petitioner's motion for a one-time extension of fifteen (15) days to file her intended petition for certiorari and her subsequent motion to admit the petition would serve the higher interest of substantial justice. Whether petitioner's plea for a survey of the lot subject of the writ of possession and her own lot is a necessary and indispensable measure to ascertain their exact locations and avoid the reckless implementation of the writ on the wrong property.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated July 13, 2016, August 16, 2016, and November 4, 2016, in CA-G.R. SP No. 146409 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari dated July 4, 2016, is GRANTED, and the Petition for Certiorari dated July 18, 2016, thereafter filed, is ADMITTED. The Regional Trial Court-Quezon City, Branch 215 is ORDERED to appoint a surveyor to immediately conduct a survey of Lot 3-30-C-1 covered by TCT No. T-142901 and Lot 3-30-C-2 covered by TCT No. N-266377 to ensure the correct enforcement of the writ of possession issued in favor of BPI Family Savings Bank. The parties shall bear the survey fees corresponding to their respective lots.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of granting the motion for extension and admitting the petition for certiorari: The Court held that while the filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari was deleted by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, the period may be extended subject to the court's sound discretion if a reasonable or meritorious explanation is provided. Although "pressure of work" alone is not sufficient, and the invocation of "failing health" was belated, the Court found that strict application of the rules would result in irreparable damage and grave injustice to the petitioner. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are conceived to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice, not to bind the hand that dispenses it, and that technicalities should give way to substantive rights when balanced against them. Therefore, to prevent the petitioner from perpetually and irreparably losing her property due to what she claims is an erroneous implementation of the writ of possession, the Court relaxed the technical rules in the higher interest of substantial justice. On the necessity of a survey to ascertain the exact locations of the lots: The Court found that a survey of both Lot 3-30-C-1 and Lot 3-30-C-2 is a necessary and indispensable measure to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The records showed that the two lots, previously owned by Josephine Abila, are covered by different TCTs and have different technical descriptions. They are adjacent and lie along the boundaries of Caloocan City and Quezon City, with petitioner's lot on the Caloocan side and the bank's on the Quezon City side. Conflicting claims on the exact locations of their respective lots necessitated a definitive determination. The bank claimed petitioner occupied its lot, while petitioner asserted the bank's lot was part of a street. Therefore, a survey is crucial to ensure the correct enforcement of the writ of possession on the bank's property and not on the wrong property, thereby avoiding further litigation and promoting the speedy disposition of cases.
Main Doctrine
The Court may relax the strict application of procedural rules, such as the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari, when such strict application would result in irreparable damage or grave injustice, and when the grant of an extension serves the higher interest of substantial justice. Furthermore, a survey of adjacent lots with conflicting claims on their exact locations is a necessary measure to ensure the correct enforcement of a writ of possession.