GR 164220; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164220; April 27, 2007
GERARDO AOANAN, SR., Petitioner, vs. JOSE AOANAN, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
The properties originally owned by spouses Jose Aoanan, Sr. and Maria Gabica were mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in 1953. Due to loan default, PNB extrajudicially foreclosed and purchased the properties at auction in 1961. The spouses failed to redeem, and PNB consolidated ownership in 1963. Thirty-three years later, in 1996, respondent Jose Aoanan, Jr., a son of the spouses, successfully offered to repurchase the properties from PNB using his own funds. He subsequently sold these properties to the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR).
Petitioner Gerardo Aoanan, Sr., claiming to be the eldest illegitimate son of Jose Aoanan, Sr., demanded a share in the NAPOCOR sale proceeds from respondent, alleging the repurchase money came from the sale of another parental property. Upon refusal, petitioner filed a Complaint for Injunction and Mandamus to prohibit respondent from receiving the balance and to direct NAPOCOR to release it to him instead. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding petitioner failed to prove a vested right to the proceeds. Petitioner appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for failure to file his appellant’s brief on time.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time, and whether the RTC correctly dismissed the underlying complaint for injunction.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal and modified the RTC decision only to delete an award of moral damages. On procedural grounds, the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals was proper. The filing of an appellant’s brief is mandatory, and failure to do so within the prescribed period is a ground for dismissal of the appeal. The Court found no compelling reason to relax this rule.
On the substantive merits, the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint for injunction. The Court upheld the RTC’s finding that petitioner failed to establish a clear and present right warranting the extraordinary writ of injunction. The properties had been lawfully acquired by PNB through foreclosure and consolidation of ownership decades prior. Respondent’s subsequent repurchase from PNB was a new transaction using his personal funds, not an act of administering a parental estate. Petitioner provided no credible evidence that the repurchase money originated from the sale of another property belonging to his father’s estate. Since petitioner did not prove a vested, existing right to the properties or the sale proceeds, he had no legal basis to seek injunction or mandamus against respondent or NAPOCOR. The action was an improper remedy to enforce a claimed abstract or future right.