G.R. No. 166944, August 18, 2014
Juanito Magsino, Petitioner, vs. Elena De Ocampo and Ramon Guico, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juanito Magsino filed a complaint for forcible entry with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction against respondents Elena De Ocampo and Ramon Guico in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Antipolo City. He alleged ownership and physical possession for over 30 years of a 10-hectare agricultural land in Antipolo City, claiming that respondents, through force and intimidation with armed men, bulldozed portions of his land, destroying his plants and depriving him of possession. Respondent De Ocampo countered that she held a registered title to the land inherited from her mother, and that petitioner was a squatter. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Taytay, Rizal dismissed petitioner’s complaint, ordered him to vacate the land, and to pay respondents litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City affirmed the MTC decision in toto. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 42. The CA dismissed the petition for review in a resolution dated January 8, 2004, due to petitioner’s failure to comply with Section 2(d), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, specifically for not attaching copies of the complaint, answer, motion to dismiss filed in the MTC, and the appeal memoranda filed in the RTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on January 28, 2005.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on the ground of petitioner’s failure to comply with the documentary requirements under Section 2(d), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the petition. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in strict compliance with procedural rules. Section 3, Rule 42 explicitly states that failure to comply with the requirements, including the submission of necessary pleadings and material portions of the record to support the petition, is a sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court applied the guideposts from Galvez v. Court of Appeals to determine if procedural relaxation was warranted: (1) only relevant and pertinent documents supporting the material allegations need be attached; (2) a document need not be appended if its contents are found in another attached document; (3) a deficient petition may still be given due course if the documents are later submitted or if higher interest of justice is served. The Court found petitioner did not meet these guideposts. The omitted pleadings (complaint, answer, motion to dismiss, appeal memoranda) were essential as they contained the factual allegations and defenses central to the forcible entry case, particularly the issue of prior physical possession versus titled ownership, which the lower courts had ruled upon. Petitioner’s argument that the decisions alone sufficed because the issues were purely legal was incorrect, as the determination of possession in forcible entry is factual. The Court also noted petitioner did not subsequently submit the required documents nor sufficiently demonstrate that a liberal application of the rules was imperative to serve the higher interest of justice. Thus, the CA’s dismissal based on a procedural infirmity was proper.