13.
ACHACOSO VS CA
Upon the filing on December 15, 1972 of the
petition at bar for review of the Court of
Appeals' decision dismissing petitioner's
petition for, the Court per its resolution of
December 22, 1972 required respondents to
comment thereon.
Respondents filed on February 8, 1973 an
extensive eighteen page comment and
petitioner's counsel, Rodrigo M. Nera, filed on
February 12, 1973 a motion for leave to file
reply within 15 days  from notice.
On the last day for filing of the reply, counsel
asked for an additional 15 days. Request
granted.
Counsel again asked for still another 15-day
extension The Court granted such extension for
the third and last time.
The period for the filing of petitioner's reply
lapsed without counsel having filed any reply
manifestation explaining his failure to do so.
Court denied the petition for review for lack of
merit, further required petitioner's counsel to
show cause why discipline action should not
be taken against him for failure to file the reply
after having obtained such leave and three
extensions time within which to do so.
Issue:
Whether or not Counsel is liable for repeatedly
asking extension to file their pleadings and
letting the period lapse without submitting
pleading or even an explanation or
manifestation of their failure to do so.
Held:
Yes. According to Petitioner’s counsel, his
inability to submit the reply within the
extension granted by this Honorable Court was
due to supervening circumstances, furthermore
Atty. Rodrigo Nera apologized for such incident,
which after all were due to causes and
circumstances beyond his control.
However, according to the Supreme Court he
could have filed timely the necessary
manifestation that he was foregoing the filing of
such reply on petitioner's behalf. His inaction
unduly delayed the Court's prompt disposition
of the case after the filing by respondents of
their comments.
Counsel readily perceived in his explanation
that his conduct comes close to delaying the
administration of justice and trifling with the
Court's processes. It does not reflect well on
counsel's conduct as an officer of the Court that
after assuring the Court that the third extension
requested by him "in view of his crowded
schedule" and "of urgent professional work and
daily trial engagements" would be the last
within which period he would at last file the
awaited reply, for him thereafter to let the
period simply lapse without any explanation
whatsoever, and worse, to wait to be found out,
and have the Court require him to explain. Atty.
Nera is hereby reprimanded.

14. ROXAS VS CA
Facts:
Maguesun filed an Application for Registration of 2
parcels of unregistered land. They presented a Deed of
Absolute Sale, executed by vendor, Zenaida Melliza.
Zenaida in turn, bought the property from the petitioner
months earlier, as evidenced by said deed and an Affidavit
of Self-Adjudication.
Notices of the initial hearing were sent by the Land
Registration Authority to Hilario Luna, Jose Gil and Leon
Luna on the basis of Maguesun’s application for
registration. Since Roxas was not named as an adjoining
owner, occupant or adverse claimant, she was not sent a
notice of the proceedings. Publication was made in the
Official Gazette and the Record Newsweekly.
After an Order of default was issued, RTC proceeded to
hear registration case. Later, the LRA reported, that the
subject parcels of land had previously been applied for
registration by petitioner but no decision has been
rendered thereon. Eventually, RTC granted Maguesun’s
application. Consequently,RTC dismissed the petitioner’s
application for registration. It was only when the caretaker
of the property was being asked to vacate that petitioner
learned of its sale and registration of the lots in
Maguesun’s name.
Thus, petitioner filed a petition for review before the RTC,
to set aside the decree of registration on the ground that
Maguesun committed actual fraud. Contentions: lots were
among the properties she inherited; her family had been in
open, continuous, adverse and uninterrupted possession
in the concept of owner for more than 30 years before
they applied for its registration. Further denied that she
sold the lots to Zenaida whom she had never met before;
her signature was forged in both the Deed of Sale and the
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. Additionally, she claimed
that Maguesun intentionally omitted her name as an
adverse claimant, occupant or adjoining owner in the
application for registration submitted to the LRA such that
the lattercould not send her a Notice of Initial Hearing. As
result, an order of general default was issued and
Maguesun Corporation's application for registration was
granted.
RTC: dismissed petition for review of decree of
registration; concluded that the documents were not
forged. Also, Maguesun did not commit actual fraud.
CA: denied the petition and affirmed RTC. Held that
petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was actual or
extrinsic fraud, a prerequisite for purposes of annuling a
judgment or reviewing a decree of registration.
Additionally, stated that the discrepancies or irregularities
in the Deed of Sale and Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
pointed out by petitioner are not patent or obvious,
involve matters that are too trivial. Finally, ruled that
publication of the initial hearing in the Official Gazette is
sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court.
Issue:
w/n CA erred in ruling that Maguesun did not commit
actual fraud warranting the setting aside of the
registration decree and in resolving the appeal on the
basis of Maguesun’s good faith.
Held:
yes, SC ruled there is actual fraud.
Registration of untitled land under the Torrens System
pursuant to PD 1529 “Adjudication of land in a registration
Case does not become final and incontrovertible until the
expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree.
Before such time, the decision remains under the control
and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree,
which court after hearing, may set aside the decision or
decree and adjudicate the land to another party. Xxxx
However, the right of a person deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by adjudication or confirmation of
title obtained by actual fraud is recognized by law as a
valid and legal basis for reopening and revising a decree of
registration. Xxxx”
Fraud is of 2 kinds: actual or constructive. Actual or
positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception
practiced by means ofthe misrepresentation or
concealment of a material fact. Constructive fraud is
construed as a fraud because of its detrimental effectupon
public interests and public or private confidence, even
though the act is not done or committed with an actual
design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other
persons.
Petitioner contended that Maguesun intentionally omitted
their name, or that of the Roxas family, as having a claim
to or as an occupant of the subject property. In the
corporation's application for registration filed with the trial
court, the following declaration appears:
“6. That the names in full and addresses, as far as known
to the undersigned, of the owners of all adjoining
properties; of the persons mentioned in paragraphs 3 and
5 (mortgagors, encumbrancers, and occupants) and of the
person shown on the plan as claimants are as follows:
Hilario Luna, Jose Gil. Leon Luna. Provincial Road all at
Tagaytay City (no house No.)"
The highlighted words are typed in with a different
typewriter, with the first five letters of the word
"provincial" typed over correction fluid. In the copy
submitted to the trial court, the answer to the same
number is as follows: Hilario Luna, Jose Gil, Leon Luna,
Roxas. The discrepancy which is unexplained appears
15. Alonzo v. Villamor Case Digest
GR No. 2353
July 16, 1910
Facts
This is a case involving municipal officials and a
priest. The plaintiff is a priest while the
defendants were members of the municipal
board of the municipality of Pacer. Here, the
municipal officers wrote a letter to the priest.
Such letter provides that there was an order
from the provincial fiscal that the the
cemeteries, convents, and other buildings
erected on land belonging to the town at the
expense of the town and preserved by it belong
to the town. Hence, the municipal officers
notify that all revenues and products arising
therefrom shall be turned into the Treasury of
the Municipality of Placer. Moreover, the image
of St Vicente, which is donated to the people is
a property of the people and must therefore be
turned to the municipality for preservation.
Thereafter, the defendants took possession of
the church and its appurtenances, and also of
all of the personal property contained therein.
With that, the plaintiff as a priest brought an
action to recover from the defendants the value
of the articles confiscated and the rental value
of the church. The Lower Court ruled in favor of
the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendants
presented as a defense that the plaintiff is not
the real party in interest. This is because the
real party in interest is the bishop of the diocese
within which the church was located or the
Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. Hence, the
action is in contravention with Section 114 of consideration from courts. There should be no
the Code of Civil Procedure. vested rights in technicalities. No litigant should
be permitted to challenge a record of a court of
Issue these Islands for defect of form when his
substantial rights have not been prejudiced
Whether or not the court a quo erred in thereby. “
permitting the action to be brought and
continued in the name of the plaintiff instead of
in the name of the bishop of the diocese within
which the church was located, or in the name of
the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, as the
real party in interest.
The petitioner seeks the issuance of the
Held
extraordinary writs of certiorari and mandamus
No. Here, the Court allowed the substitution of to annul and set aside the decision of the
plaintiff as the party in interest. Section 503 of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamis City,
the Civil Procedure Code provided that “No Branch 15, in Criminal Case No. 85-49, the
judgment shall be reversed on formal or Resolution of the Court of Appeals of 5
technical grounds.” Section 110 of the same
September 1990 in CA-G.R. CR No. 07482, and
Code provided that in furtherance of justice, the
the Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 108331;
court is empowered to allow a party to amend
and to order the Court of Appeals to give due
any pleading or proceeding at any stage of the
action. Here, the Court further elucidated that: course to the petitioner’s appeal upon the filing
of appellant’s brief.
“A litigation is not a game of technicalities in
which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in
the subtle art of movement and position,
Held:
entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a
contest in which each contending party fully
and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue Yes , Attorneys ALVIN C. GO, FERNANDO C.
and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and COJUANGCO, VIGOR D. MENDOZA, II, and
indecisive all imperfections of form and ANTONIO A. LIGON are hereby CENSURED and
technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be warned that a repetition of the same or similar
done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, acts in the future shall be dealt with more
are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust. severely.
Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as
an aid to justice and becomes its great
hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant
16. AURELIA S. GOMEZ, petitioner, vs.HON.
PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, Branch 15, Ozamis
City; COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:
The case is a resolution dismissing this petition
for "utter lack of merit," and requiring attorneys
for petitioner to show cause "why they should
not be disciplinarily dealt with for impeding the
execution of the judgment in Criminal case No.
85-49 and for misusing the rules of procedure
to defeat the ends of justice in violation of
Rule 10.03, Canon 10 and Rule 12.04, Canon
12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility."
It appears that petitioner seeks the issuance of
the extraordinary writs of certiorari and
mandamus toannul and set aside the
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in a certain criminal case, the Resolution
of the Court of Appeals and the Resolution of
this Court in G.R. No. 108331; and to order the
Court of Appeals to give due course to the
petitioner's appeal upon the filing of appellant's
brief. In the final analysis , the instant petition is
to annul and set aside this Court's final
resolution in G.R. No. 108331.
Herein counsel were candid in the presentation
of the factual and procedural antecedents
based on pleadings given to them by their
client. Counsel disclosed in the petition in page
10 thereof that there is already an Entry of
Judgment in Criminal Case. In their answer,
counsel for petitioner beg the indulgence
of Honorable Court in asking for the
extraordinary relief of seeking a declaration of
mistrial of the libel case tried in the lower court
through the special civil action for certiorari as
they were impelled by their conviction that
petitioner performed a moral and legal
obligation in writing the letter which was the
basis for libel, as she did, which disclosed the
price fixing and price rigging of oil products by
the private complainant, Mr.Marieto Tan, for
his private benefit (in Criminal Case No. 85-49,
RTC-Ozamiz City)
ISSUE: WON the acts of petitioners lawyer is a
violation of the canon rule
Conclusion: Attorneys Alvin C. Go, Fernando C.
Cojuangco, Vigor D. Mendoza, II, and Antonio A.
Ligon of the same or similar acts in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.
LAW APPLICABLE: CANON 10, RULE 10.03 - a
lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and
shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice. Petitioner's counsel knew, or were
reasonably expected to know, the hopelessness
of their client's cause since the petition was
filed, it bears repeating, one year, four months,
and nineteen days after the entry of judgment
in G.R. No. 108331 — long after the lapse of the
jurisprudentially established measure of
"reasonable time" prescribed for the remedy
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Howsoever
viewed, the filing of the instant petition was
nothing but a scheme to frustrate and further
delay the execution of the judgment in Criminal
Case No. 85-49. Courts must guard themselves
against any scheme to bring about that result,
for constituted as they are to put an end to
controversies, they should frown upon any
attempt to prolong it.
18. PNB V. UY TENG PIAO PNB V. UY TENG
PIAO (G.R. No. L-35252, October 21, 1932)
(57 Phil 337)
FACTS:
The lower court rendered a judgment in
favor of the Philippine National Bank (PNB)
and against Uy Teng Piao in one civil case.
Upon failure by Uy Teng Piao to pay, its
mortgaged land was sold at public auction
to the PNB. Later, the PNB secured from Uy
Teng Piao a waiver of his right to redeem
the property in question and sold the same
to a third person. In his answer Uy Teng
Piao alleged that he waived his right to
redeem the land upon an agreement that
the bank would not collect from him the
balance of the judgment. It was on this
ground that the trial court released PNB
from the complaint. One of the attorneys
for the PNB testified that Uy Teng Piao
renounced his right to redeem the parcel of
land, because a friend of the respondent
was interested in buying it. The testimony
of the attorney was questioned from the
fact of his being a witness and an attorney
at the same time in a cause.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the counsel for the
respondent PNB could be a witness and at
the same time an attorney in the instant
case.
HELD:
The counsel for the respondent PNB, could
not be a witness and at the same time an
attorney in the instant case. Canon 19 of
the Code of Legal Ethics provides that when
a lawyer is a witness for his client, except as
to merely formal matters, such as the
attestation or custody of an instrument and
the like, he should leave the trial of the case
to other counsel, except when essential to
the ends of justice, a lawyer should avoid
testifying in court in behalf of his client.
With respect to the testimony of the bank's
attorney, it is observe that although the law
does not forbid an attorney to be a witness
and at the same time an attorney in a
cause, the courts prefer that counsel should
not testify as a witness unless it is
necessary, and that they should withdraw
from the active management of the case.