G.R. No. 158093 ; June 5, 2009
Alberto Imperial, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and the Republic of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alberto Imperial, along with others, filed a petition for the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. 35796, covering a parcel of land in Ligao, Albay. The original title was allegedly lost during World War II, and the reconstitution was sought using the owner’s duplicate certificate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the publication requirements under Republic Act No. 26 . The OSG pointed to an irregularity in the Certificate of Publication, which was dated April 3, 1995, but was officially released on March 28, 1995, casting doubt on whether the notice of hearing was published twice at least thirty days prior to the hearing as required by law. The CA agreed with the OSG, reversed the RTC Order, and declared the reconstitution void for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon receipt of the CA Decision, the petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration, citing the need to examine records and secure a certification from the National Printing Office (NPO) regarding the publication. He subsequently filed the Motion for Reconsideration within the extended period he sought. The CA, however, denied the motion for extension and expunged the motion for reconsideration from the records, prompting the petitioner to file this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and in not resolving the subsequently filed motion for reconsideration on its merits.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA. On the procedural issue, the Court acknowledged the general rule, established in Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon, that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is allowed in lower courts. However, the Court emphasized that this rule is not absolute and admits exceptions to serve substantial justice. In this case, the petitioner’s motion for extension was based on a compelling reason: to present a certification from the NPO to prove compliance with the jurisdictional publication requirement—a matter that goes to the very heart of the case. The CA’s outright denial, without considering the merits of the substantive motion already filed, constituted a rigid and arbitrary application of procedural rules, amounting to grave abuse of discretion.
On the substantive issue, the Supreme Court found that the CA erred in nullifying the reconstitution. The alleged irregularity in the Certificate of Publication date was sufficiently explained by the NPO certification, which stated that issues of the Official Gazette are sometimes released earlier than their cover date if printing is completed early. This official explanation validated the publication and demonstrated compliance with R.A. No. 26 . Therefore, the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction, and its Order for reconstitution was reinstated.