GR 165938; (November, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165938; November 25, 2009
ROGELIO DIZON, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rogelio Dizon and his wife mortgaged three parcels of land to respondent Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB). Upon the spouses’ failure to pay their obligation, PVB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and acquired the properties at a public auction in 1983, with the Certificate of Sale registered in 1984. In 1986, PVB filed a petition for the issuance of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title, but this was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. PVB filed a second petition for the same purpose in 1999, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted in 2001.
Petitioner Dizon appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed his appeal for his failure to file the required appellant’s brief. His motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Dizon’s appeal for failure to file his appellant’s brief, thereby foreclosing his substantive arguments, which included the claim that PVB’s petition for issuance of a duplicate title was barred by prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s resolutions. The Court held that the CA correctly dismissed the appeal for Dizon’s failure to file his brief within the reglementary period, which is a mandatory requirement under the Rules of Court. This failure constituted a waiver of his right to challenge the RTC’s decision and resulted in the abandonment of his appeal.
On the substantive argument raised in the petition regarding prescription, the Court clarified that PVB’s action was not a mortgage action prescribed in ten years under Article 1142 of the Civil Code. The mortgage had already been foreclosed, and the properties were sold to PVB. The subsequent petition for the issuance of a duplicate certificate of title was an action arising from PVB’s ownership of the land, governed by the Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529). Such a petition is an in rem proceeding and does not prescribe. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive. Since Dizon’s appeal was properly dismissed on procedural grounds, the RTC’s factual finding that PVB sufficiently proved the loss of the duplicate certificates and was entitled to their replacement stands.