Digest

Sindophil vs Republic
Facts
 Sindophil possessed a land on the basis of TCT Title No. Z.

 The Republic then filed a complaint for a cancellation of Sindophil’s title
 The republic alleges that the property under TCT Title No. Z was initially registered
under TCT No. X, however TCT Title No. Z was obtained through spurious means such
as being issued under the name of different individual and covering a portion of a lot
covered by TCT Title No. Y under the name of the Republic but which was never
subdivided. Hence, Sindophil’s title No.Z, deriving from the spurious Title No. X is null
and void.
 During trial, only the Republic was able to present its evidence. Defendants Sindophil
was deemed to have waived their right to present evidence when it failed to present
any evidence or witness despite several settings. The parties were then ordered to file
their respective memoranda; but instead of filing a memorandum, Sindophil filed a
Motion to Re-Open Case, praying that it be allowed to present evidence that it was a
buyer in good faith.
 The Regional Trial Court, however, went on to decide the case without acting on
Sindophil's Motion to Re-Open Case. In its November 13, 2009 Decision, it ruled in favor
of the Republic and voided the certificates of title of Sindophil
 Sindophil filed an appeal. However, for failure to file their appellants' brief within the
required period, the Court of Appeals deemed the appeal abandoned and consequently
dismissed it.
Held:
1. Rule 50, Section 1 ( e) of the Rules of Court is the basis for dismissing an appeal for
failure to file the appellant's brief within the required period:
“Rule 50, Section 1. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal. - An appeal may be dismissed by the
Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or
memorandum within the time provided by these Rules”
 With the use of the permissive "may," it has been held that the dismissal is directory, not
mandatory, with the discretion to be exercised soundly and "in accordance with the tenets
of justice and fair play" and "having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case."
 Technically, the Court of Appeals may dismiss an appeal for failure of the appellant to
file the appellants' brief on time. But, the dismissal is directory, not mandatory. Hence,
the court has discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss the appeal. It is a power conferred on
the court, not a duty. The discretion, however, must be a sound one, to be exercised in
accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances
obtaining in each case.
 Atty. Obligar' s excuse is unacceptable. While he is not prohibited from hiring clerks and
other staff to help him in his law practice, it is still, first and foremost, his duty to monitor
the receipt of notices such as the Court of Appeals' resolution directing the filing of the
appellant's brief. He cannot blame his staff or house helpers as it is already settled that the
negligence of the clerks and employees of a lawyer binds the latter. That he is not even
sure what happened to the Resolution shows his carelessness, and this negligence is one
that ordinary diligence could have guarded against. He should have devised a system in
his law office whereby his clerks are to immediately route the notices they receive to the
handling lawyer because the reglementary period for filing an appeal brief runs from their
receipt.
2.
 the Regional Trial Court did not err in deciding the case despite Sindophil's filing of a
Motion to Re-Open Case.
 The order of trial is governed by Rule 30, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, with item (f)
specifically governing the reopening of a case to introduce new evidence, thus:
Section 5. Order of trial. - Subject to the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 31, and
unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial shall be limited to the
issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as follows: (a) The plaintiff shall
adduce evidence in support of his complaint; (b) The defendant shall then adduce
evidence in support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint;
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan explained Rule 30, Section 5:
Under this rule, a party who has the burden of proof must introduce, at the first instance,
all the evidence he relies upon and such evidence cannot be given piecemeal. The
obvious rationale of the requirement is to avoid injurious surprises to the other party and
the consequent delay in the administration of justice. A party's declaration of the
completion of the presentation of his evidence prevents him from introducing further
evidence; but where the evidence is rebuttal in character, whose necessity, for instance,
arose from the shifting of the burden of evidence from one party to the other; or where
the evidence sought to be presented is in the nature of newly discovered evidence, the
party's right to introduce further evidence must be recognized. Otherwise, the aggrieved
party may avail of the remedy of certiorari.
Largely, the exercise of the court's discretion under the exception of Section 5 (f), Rule
30 of the Rules of Court depends on the attendant facts - i.e., on whether the evidence
would qualify as a "good reason" and be in furtherance of "the interest of justice." For a
reviewing court to properly interfere with the lower court's exercise of discretion, the
petitioner must show that the lower court's action was attended by grave abuse of
discretion
 The introduction of new evidence even after a party has rested its case may, therefore, be
done but only if the court finds that it is for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice.
The admission is discretionary on the part of the court and, as explained in Republic, may
only be set aside if the admission was done with grave abuse of discretion
3.
 The presumption that a holder of a Torrens title is an innocent purchaser for value is
disputable and may be overcome by contrary evidence. Once a prima facie case disputing
this presumption is established, the adverse party cannot simply rely on the presumption
of good faith and must put forward evidence that the property was acquired without
notice of any defect in its title.
As this Court said in Baltazar v. Court of Appeals, 87 "the burden of proving the status of a
purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon him who asserts that status"and "[i]n discharging
that burden, it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith, i.e., that everyone
is presumed to act in good faith. The good faith that is [essential here] is integral with the very
status which must be proved. Unfortunately for Sindophil, it utterly failed to discharge the
burden of evidence because its counsel failed to attend the scheduled initial presentation of
evidence
 With Sindophil failing to prove that it was a buyer in good faith, it cannot recover
damages to be paid out of the Assurance Fund under Section 1592 of the Property
Registration Decree.

Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sindophil vs Republic

 Sindophil possessed a land on the basis of TCT Title No. Z.

 Republic v. Sandiganbayan explained Rule 30, Section 5:

You might also like