Republic of the Philippines vs. Spouses Dante and Lolita Benigno
G.R. No. 205492
March 11, 2015
Second Division
Ponente: Del Castillo, J.
keyword: ornery case
Gist:
As a rule, the State is never estopped
from questioning the irregular or erroneous acts of its officials. Hence, Sec.
1(e), Rule 50 which provides that a ground for the dismissal of an appeal is
failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his
brief or memorandum within the time provided by the Rules, has no application
in the instant case.
Facts:
On November 1995, spouses Dante and
Lolita Benigno filed with the RTC of Calamba, Laguna an application for
registration of title under Presidential Decree No. 1529 to a lot situated in
Los Banos, Laguna.
After trial, the Calamba RTC issued a
Decision dated December 9, 2005 granting the spouses’ application for
registration.
Petitioner filed its notice of appeal
on January 10, 2006. In an April 10, 2006 Order, the trial court approved the
notice of appeal and directed that the entire records of the case be forwarded
to the CA.
On March 2010, respondents filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and Issue a Final Decree of Registration, claiming
among others that petitioner has abandoned its appeal. In a July 2010 Order,
the Calamba RTC denied respondent’s motions, stating that it was respondents’
failure to submit certain required documents – the Affidavit of Publication and
Certificate of Posting – which caused the non-transmittal of the records of the
case to the CA.
Issue:
The CA erred when it ordered the
dismissal of the appeal although the delay in the filing of the appellant’s
brief was caused by the trial court and the respondents
Ruling:
In Beatingo v. Gasis, the power conferred upon the CA to dismiss an
appeal for failure to file an appellant’s brief is discretionary. The Court
agrees with the appellate court’s application of Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the
Rules. Petitioner took its liberties in the prosecution of its appeal, filing
at least three motions for extension of time before finally turning in its
appellant’s brief, and taking the demeanor consistent with expecting that each
motion for extension of time would be granted.
As a matter of doctrine, illegal acts
of government agents do not bind the State, and the Government is never stopped
from questioning the acts of its officials, more so if they are erroneous, let
alone irregular. This principle applies in land registration cases.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all
lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of
any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of
such patrimony.
Respondents did not present any
documentary evidence in the land registration case to prove that the land
applied for is alienable and disposable public land. They even sought the
application of the exceptional ruling in Republic
v. Vega to obtain exemption from the requirement on the submission of
documentary proof showing that the property applied for constitutes alienable
and disposable public land.
Consequently, the December 9, 2005
Decision of the Calamba RTC is void. The trial court had no basis in fact and
in law to grant respondents’ application for registration as there was no proof
of alienability adduced.
A void judgment is no judgment at
all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of any obligation.
In this case, respondents cannot
invoke Republic v. Vega to claim
substantial compliance with the requirement of proof of availability as there
is complete absence of documentary evidence showing that the land applied for
forms part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.
