G.R. No. 150321 ; March 31, 2005
ADELINA GUERZON BARCENAS, MAXIMO T. GUERZON SR., MARINA T. GUERZON, GABRIEL T. GUERZON, and ROWEL T. GUERZON, in their Capacity as Heirs to VERONICA TOLENTINO, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ANASTACIO TOMAS and CANDIDA CALIBOSO, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent spouses filed a case for recovery of ownership and possession against the heirs of Veronica Tolentino. They alleged that Veronica sold them a one-hectare portion of her undivided share in a co-owned property in 1969, evidenced by a notarized Deed of Sale. They took possession until 1989 when they migrated abroad. In 1989, the heirs executed an Extrajudicial Partition of the entire property. In 1995, petitioner Maximo Guerzon, one of the heirs, wrested possession of the lot from the respondents’ caretaker. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled for the respondents, finding the sale established by the notarized deed and continuous possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Review. The CA dismissed the petition outright due to procedural defects: failure to state petitioners’ full names, non-appendment of pleadings from the lower courts, and an improperly executed Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping signed by only one petitioner. Petitioners then filed the instant Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, asking it to set aside the CA’s procedural dismissal in the interest of substantial justice and to review the merits of the MTC and RTC decisions.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review due to procedural infirmities. The ancillary issue is whether the Supreme Court should disregard these procedural lapses and review the substantive merits of the case regarding the validity of the deed of sale and the rights of a co-owner to alienate a specific portion of co-owned property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential tools for the orderly administration of justice. Petitioners’ non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court—specifically the defective caption, lack of necessary annexes, and deficient verification—hindered the CA’s review and justified dismissal. The requirement to submit certified true copies of the assailed judgments and material portions of the record is crucial, as these documents provide the appellate court with the definitive basis for its actions.
The Court refused to relax the rules. Petitioners offered no compelling reason for their non-compliance, and their claim of “substantial justice” was unavailing. Procedural rules must be faithfully followed by all parties. The Court further noted that even if it were to review the merits, petitioners’ substantive claims would fail. The notarized Deed of Sale is a public document that carries the presumption of regularity, which petitioners failed to rebut with clear and convincing evidence of forgery. Moreover, under Article 493 of the Civil Code, a co-owner like Veronica Tolentino may validly alienate her ideal, undivided share in the property. The sale effectively transferred her proportionate interest to the respondents, making them co-owners. The subsequent extrajudicial partition did not invalidate this prior sale.