View full case

VALENTINA A. NUÑEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK

FACTS:

The petitioners are the heirs of Leonilo S. Nuñez who obtained three loans from GSIS Family Bank. The first loan was secured by a mortgage over a parcel of land, while the second loan was secured by mortgages of several properties. The third loan amended the first loan and mortgaged the same property. Leonilo obtained a "fourth loan" and executed a real estate mortgage over several properties. The loans matured on June 30, 1978 and December 27, 1978. Over nineteen years later, the bank undertook to foreclose the properties securing the first two loans, alleging that Leonilo failed to pay his obligations. The bank succeeded in the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. Leonilo then filed a complaint for annulment of foreclosure, reconveyance, and cancellation of encumbrances, invoking prescription. He pointed out that only two of the titles securing the "fourth loan" were subject to foreclosure, and the mortgage was not annotated on the other four titles. The RTC ruled in favor of Leonilo, declaring the cause of action had prescribed and the foreclosure proceedings were null and void. The bank's motion for reconsideration was denied due to non-compliance with the notice of hearing requirement. The bank filed a late notice of appeal, but the trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The bank then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the order of the Regional Trial Court denying the notice of appeal and in giving due course to the notice of appeal.

  2. Whether the private respondent could still appeal a judgment which has become final and executory.

  3. Whether or not the failure to timely perfect an appeal is a mere technicality or a jurisdictional issue.

  4. Whether or not the bank's claim has prescribed.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds the petition impressed with merit. The requirements for the appeal were met, and the dismissal of the notice of appeal by the trial court without considering the merits of the case would result in injustice. The appellate court is correct in giving due course to the notice of appeal to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  2. The private respondent can still appeal a judgment that has become final and executory if there are strong and compelling reasons to admit the motion for reconsideration and consider the erroneous conclusions of fact and law on which the decision was based.

  3. The failure to timely perfect an appeal is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional issue. The failure to file the notice of appeal within the reglementary period deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal.

  4. The bank's claim has prescribed. An action to foreclose a real estate mortgage prescribes in ten years. The bank failed to prove that it made repeated demands for payment prior to the expiration of the ten-year period.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right to appeal is a statutory but essential part of the judicial system and should not be deprived if it would result in injustice or a miscarriage of justice.

  • Errors of jurisdiction are best reviewed in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, while errors of judgment can only be corrected by appeal in a petition for review under Rule 45.

  • The requirements for an appeal must be strictly followed, but in the interest of justice, a petition for certiorari may be treated as filed under Rule 45 if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.

  • The requirement of notice in motions is mandatory, and the absence of this requirement renders the motion a worthless piece of paper that the court has no authority to act upon.

  • The failure to timely perfect an appeal is a jurisdictional issue and not a mere technicality. It deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal.

  • An action to foreclose a real estate mortgage prescribes in ten years.

  • Allegations are not proofs. Unless a demand is proven, one cannot be held in default.

  • The requirement of an appeal fee and the timely filing of a notice of appeal are essential requirements for perfecting an appeal. Failure to comply with these requirements renders the decision appealed from final and executory.

  • Rules may be relaxed when the party invoking liberality adequately explains his failure to abide therewith. However, unsatisfactory explanations will not excuse non-compliance with the rules.

  • The failure to incorporate a notice of hearing in a motion or pleading and the handling counsel's heavy workload do not excuse non-compliance with the rules.

  • The government's potential loss does not justify the relaxation of rules and the disregard of jurisdictional requirements.