G.R. No. 169336; March 18, 2010
SPOUSES MELCHOR and SATURNINA ALDE, Petitioners, vs. RONALD B. BERNAL, OLYMPIA B. BERNAL, JUANITO B. BERNAL, and MYRNA D. BERNAL, Respondents.

FACTS

Adriano Bernal, father of the respondents, occupied and cultivated a parcel of land in Bukidnon. In 1994, he secured loans from petitioners, using portions of the land as security, and later sold the entire property to petitioners through a “Kasabotan sa Palit sa Yuta” dated September 22, 1994, which was signed by Adriano, his wife, and respondent Ronald Bernal as a witness. Petitioners took possession and cultivated the land. Subsequently, on October 18, 1994, Original Certificate of Title No. AO-7236 was issued in the names of Adriano, Ronald, and respondent Juanito Bernal, originating from a Certificate of Land Ownership Award under the agrarian reform program. In 2002, respondents demanded additional payment from petitioners and revealed the existence of the title. Respondents then filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). The MCTC dismissed the complaint, finding Adriano was the sole owner and validly sold the property. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) modified the decision, declaring the sale valid only as to Adriano’s share and ordering the return of the respondents’ portions. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on technical grounds: failure to furnish the RTC with a copy of the petition, improper verification, and incorrect mode of appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on purely technical grounds.
2. Whether the respondents proved their ownership over portions of the property, making the sale by Adriano invalid as to their shares.

RULING

1. Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on purely technical grounds. The Supreme Court held that the late filing and service of a copy of the petition to the RTC was not a substantial infirmity warranting outright dismissal. Verification is only a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement. The dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned upon; courts should excuse technical lapses to review cases on their merits and attain justice.
2. No, the respondents failed to prove their title over the property. The Supreme Court agreed with petitioners that respondents presented no evidence of ownership. Respondents admitted during pre-trial that the land was owned by Adriano. Their claim of verbal donations in 1978 and 1987 lacked any deed of donation, as required by law for donations to be effective. The tax declaration only mentioned Adriano as owner. The deed of mortgage from June 1994, while initially naming Ronald, had his designation as owner crossed out, and Adriano signed as owner. Ronald was present and signed as a witness to the deed of sale, which was in their local dialect, making it hard to believe he did not understand its contents. The delay of over seven years in questioning the sale further undermined respondents’ claims. Thus, Adriano was the sole owner with the right to sell the entire property, and petitioners are declared the absolute and legal owners. The Supreme Court reversed the RTC decision and reinstated the MCTC decision dismissing respondents’ complaint.