Case Digest: FELIPE R. ANGELES and GREGORIA ANGELES v. FERMIN TAN, et al.

FELIPE R. ANGELES and GREGORIA ANGELES v. FERMIN TAN, et al.

G.R. No. 146678, (29 September 2004)

Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, the assailed decision must remain.

Spouses Felipe and Gregoria Angeles filed a complaint for reconveyance with damages against Spouses Fermin and Teresita Tan. The complaint involves the return of a parcel of land originally owned by the former which was mortgaged to a certain Prudencio Reyes who subsequently sold the same to spouses Tan after the redemption period expired without any redemption having been made by Angeles.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint and the subsequent Motion to Reconsider was likewise denied which prompted a filing of a Notice of Appeal. However during the pendency of the Notice of Appeal, Angeles proceeded with a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
However, due to the procedural infirmity in the filing of the Petition for Review, the CA ordered that the RTC decision has become final and executory.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Spouses Angeles right to due process was violated by the outright dismissal of the case without full dress trial on the merit

HELD:

On procedural grounds alone, no reversible error on the part of the CA in dismissing the appeal is appreciated. The records indubitably show that although spouses Angeles‘ Notice of Appeal was filed on time and was given due course by the trial court, they subsequently filed a Petition for Review before the CA, hence, they were deemed to have abandoned the appeal. Spouses Angeles‘ petition for review was, however, denied by the CA.
At all events, Spouses Angeles‘ brief was filed beyond the reglementary period, no explanation for which was even offered. Section 1, Rule 50 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure reads that an appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, among others, on the ground of 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;

On the merits, the petition fails just the same. Spouses Angeles‘ contention that they were denied due process does not lie. The records show that hearings were conducted on spouses Tan‘s motion to dismiss during which both parties were given the opportunity to present evidence.

As pointed out by respondents, the records show there was a full dress trial on the merits before the motion to dismiss was granted. Like the CA then, the Court found no reason to order the remand of the case, not however, for the reasons advanced by the CA, but on the ground that petitioners failed to discharge the onus of proving their allegation that respondents fraudulently caused the transfer to them of the title of the disputed property.

Absent then any clear, competent and convincing proof as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity and nullity of spouses Tan‘s documentary evidence consisting of public instruments and official entries in the Register of Deeds, following Section 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence which provides that ―entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, the assailed decision must remain”.