G.R. No. 228138, August 27, 2020
REMEDIOS M. MASCARINAS, PETITIONER, VS. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent BPI Family Savings Bank foreclosed a mortgage over a property owned by Josephine Abila, identified as Lot 3-30-C-2 in Quezon City, and obtained a writ of possession from the RTC. When the sheriff attempted to implement the writ, petitioner Remedios Mascarinas, an occupant, objected. She claimed ownership over an adjacent lot, Lot 3-30-C-1 in Caloocan City, which she also purchased from Abila. Mascarinas argued that the bank’s lot was actually part of a street and that the writ was being enforced on her property due to a locational confusion, as both lots stem from the same previous owner and sit along the city boundary. She moved to quash the writ, submitting an LRA-approved sketch plan, while the bank relied on a relocation survey. The RTC denied her motion and subsequent plea for a clarifying survey.
Mascarinas filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on April 25, 2016. She received notice on May 5, 2016. On the 60th day, July 4, 2016, she filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for a 15-day extension to file a petition for certiorari, citing her counsel’s heavy workload. The CA denied the motion, strictly applying the rules which no longer permit extensions under Rule 65. It subsequently noted without action her petition, which was filed within the sought extension period on July 19, 2016.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for extension and refusing to admit the petition for certiorari, thereby warranting relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s resolutions. While A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC indeed removed the provision for extensions of time to file a petition for certiorari, procedural rules may be relaxed to serve substantial justice, especially when a strict application would result in manifest injustice. The core dispute involves a genuine confusion over the identity and location of two adjacent properties, with Mascarinas claiming the writ of possession is being enforced on her wrongfully possessed lot. This raises a serious property right issue that transcends procedural lapses.
The Court found the circumstances justified leniency. The conflicting claims regarding the lots’ exact locations, supported by opposing survey plans, created a factual ambiguity that a survey was indispensable to resolve. Denying the petition on technicality would perpetrate a potential grave injustice by allowing the possible eviction of Mascarinas from her own property without first ascertaining the correct boundaries. Therefore, the higher interest of substantial justice demanded that her petition be heard on its merits. The Supreme Court granted the motion for extension, admitted the petition for certiorari, and ordered the RTC to conduct a survey of both lots to ensure the writ is enforced correctly.