G.R. No. 219984 , April 3, 2019
VALENCIA (BUKIDNON) FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY DAVID M. PORTICOS, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF AMANTE P. CABOTAJE, REPRESENTED BY ESTHER M. CABOTAJE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner FACOMA filed an action for quieting of title and recovery of ownership against respondents Heirs of Cabotaje and Francisco Estrada. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of FACOMA, ordering the annulment of a deed of sale and the cancellation of titles derived therefrom. The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied. Subsequently, the respondents filed a Notice of Appeal. FACOMA moved to dismiss this appeal, arguing the Motion for Reconsideration was pro forma and did not toll the appeal period.
The RTC agreed with FACOMA, issuing a Resolution that denied the Notice of Appeal for being filed out of time. The respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC’s denial of their appeal. During the pendency of this certiorari petition, the RTC granted FACOMA’s motion for execution of judgment, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the CA erred in granting the respondents’ certiorari petition, setting aside the RTC’s denial of their Notice of Appeal, and ordering the RTC to give due course to the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied FACOMA’s petition and affirmed the CA’s rulings. The Court held that the CA correctly determined that the respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC was not a pro forma motion. A pro forma motion is one that does not contain sufficient arguments to apprise the court of the grounds for reconsideration, essentially reiterating issues already passed upon. Here, the respondents’ motion raised substantial points, including FACOMA’s alleged lack of legal personality to sue and the validity of the deed of sale. These were not mere reiterations but specific contentions challenging the trial court’s factual and legal conclusions. Therefore, the motion effectively tolled the reglementary period to appeal, making the subsequent Notice of Appeal timely filed.
The Court also rejected FACOMA’s argument that the execution of judgment during the certiorari proceedings rendered the appeal moot. Citing jurisprudence, the Court clarified that the execution of a judgment does not automatically moot an appeal. A supervening event that wholly displaces the original controversy is required for mootness. The possibility of restitution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court if the appealed decision is reversed demonstrates that an appeal remains viable even after execution. The CA, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the certiorari petition. The RTC’s denial of the appeal constituted an error correctible by certiorari, as it effectively deprived the respondents of their statutory right to appeal on a mere procedural technicality.