G.R. No. 168973; August 24, 2011
By: Pearlie Jane Q. Binahon | July 25, 2018
FACTS:
Petitioner City of Dumaguete, through Mayor Remollo filed before the RTC an Application for Original Registration of Title over a parcel of land with improvements under the Property Registration Decree.
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, and respondent, represented by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, filed separate Oppositions to the application for registration of petitioner. Both the Republic and respondent averred that petitioner may not register the subject property in its name since petitioner had never been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the said property for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application; and the subject property remains to be a portion of the public domain which belongs to the Republic.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. the RTC issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss to the respondent. In its Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner contended that the dismissal of its application was premature and tantamount to a denial of its right to due process. It has yet to present evidence to prove factual matters in support of its application, such as the subject property already being alienable and disposable at the time it was occupied and possessed by petitioner.
Respondent opposed the MR. Respondent based its opposition on technical and substantive grounds. According to respondent, the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner violated Sections 4 (Hearing of motion), 5 (Notice of hearing), and 6 (Proof of service necessary), Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner did not set its Motion for Reconsideration for hearing even when the said Motion could not be considered as non-litigable. The RTC could not hear the motion for reconsideration ex parte as they are prejudicial to the rights of respondent. Petitioner also failed to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court when it did not attach to the Motion for Reconsideration a written explanation why it did not resort to personal service of the said Motion. Thus, respondent averred that the Motion for Reconsideration of the petitioner should be treated as a mere scrap of paper with no legal effect.
RTC Initially agreed with respondent that the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner violated Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 and Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. However, after taking into consideration the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of the petitioner, the RTC issued another Order setting aside its Order in the interest of justice and resolving to have a full-blown proceeding to determine factual issues in LRC Case No. N-201.
CA set aside the orders of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred on question of law in setting aside the orders promulgated by the RTC.
HELD:
Yes. Under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in the light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable, to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11.
In this case, counsel for petitioner holds office in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, in the Visayas; while counsel for respondent holds office in Quezon City, Metro Manila, in Luzon. Given the considerable distance between the offices of these two counsels, personal service of pleadings and motions by one upon the other was clearly not practicable and a written explanation as to why personal service was not done would only be superfluous. In addition, we refer once more to the merits of the Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated September 7, 2000, filed by petitioner, which justify the liberal interpretation of Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court in this case.
Moreover, records reveal that the notices in the Motion were addressed to the respective counsels of the private respondents and they were duly furnished with copies of the same as shown by the receipts signed by their staff or agents.
Consequently, the Court finds that the petitioner substantially complied with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing jurisprudence on the requirements of motions and pleadings.
