View full case

HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA v. ISAAC Z. ZAULDA

FACTS:

The heirs of Amada A. Zaulda, Eleseo A. Zaulda and Rodolfo A. Zaulda (petitioners), filed a complaint for recovery of possession and declaration of ownership against Isaac Z. Zaulda (respondent) before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. The complaint stated that the petitioners were the legal heirs of Amada Aguila-Zaulda and co-owners of a parcel of land which they acquired through inheritance. They alleged that the respondent forcibly entered the property and constructed a house on it. The MCTC ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered the respondent to vacate the property. On appeal, the RTC modified the decision and declared the respondent as the owner and possessor of certain portions of the land. Petitioners filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), but it was dismissed for being filed out of time and for lack of competent evidence on identity. The CA also denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. As a result, the petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the dismissal of their petition and the alleged erroneous findings of the RTC.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA) was filed within the prescribed period.

  2. Whether the motion for extension of time to file the petition for review was filed on time.

  3. Whether the attachment of a photocopy of the identification card is required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

  4. Whether the non-attachment of photocopy of competent evidence of identity renders the petition defective.

  5. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to an extension of time to file their Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals.

  6. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition based on technical grounds.

RULING:

  1. The petitioners complied with the requirements for filing a petition for review within the prescribed period. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision within the prescribed period. Upon the denial of the motion, the petitioners had until a specific date to file a petition for review before the CA. The petitioners filed the petition for review within the additional fifteen-day period granted by the CA.

  2. The motion for extension of time to file the petition for review was filed on time. Though there was a delay in the transmittal of the motion to the ponente's office, it was caused by the gross incompetence and inefficiency of the division personnel at the CA. It was not the fault of the petitioners that the motion was received by the CA on a later date. The CA's dismissal of the petition based on the delayed transmittal of the motion was an unfortunate injustice.

  3. The attachment of a photocopy of the identification card is not required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Even A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, amending Section 12 thereof, is silent on it. Therefore, the Court of Appeals' perception that the petition lacked competent evidence on the affiant's identity was without basis.

  4. Non-attachment of photocopy of competent evidence of identity does not render the petition fatally defective. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, and non-compliance with it does not render the pleading defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading even without verification, as long as the ends of justice are served. The higher objective of procedural rule is to ensure that the substantive rights of the parties are protected.

  5. The Supreme Court grants the petitioners' request for an extension of time to file their Petition for Review and remands the case to the Court of Appeals for decision on the merits of the petition.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The strict application of technical rules can be relaxed in the exercise of equity jurisdiction, especially when strong considerations of substantial justice are present.

  • Parties are not required to ensure that their pleadings filed by registered mail would be received by the court on or before the last day of the extended period prayed for.

  • The competent evidence of identity required for notarization can be proven by presenting an identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual.

  • A senior citizen card is recognized as a competent identification card under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

  • Verification is a formal requirement, not a jurisdictional one, and can be dispensed with if the ends of justice are served.

  • Courts should not be strict about procedural lapses that do not impair the proper administration of justice.

  • The rules of procedure should be viewed as tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and their strict application should be eschewed if it leads to technicalities that frustrate substantial justice.

  • The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice, and technicality should not prevent a party-litigant from establishing the merits of their case.

  • The Supreme Court has the discretion to grant an extension of time to file a pleading or a petition if there is a justifiable reason for the delay.

  • Technical rules of procedure should not prevail over the substantive rights of the parties. The Court should be more lenient in dismissing cases based on technical grounds if the interest of justice so requires.