GR 52081; (July, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 52081 July 21, 1989
LUCIANA M. DE ALINO, BENJAMIN ALINO and HERMOGINA M. DE UNABIA, petitioners, vs. HON. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, Judge, Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Cebu; PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of Cebu; and/or her deputies; BENEDICTO MACABALE, BERNARDINO O. MACABALE, CESAR O. MACABALE and HERMANA O. MACABALE, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land between Benedicto Macabale (father) and his children and in-laws (petitioners). Benedicto filed an action for Annulment of Deed of Sale, Reconveyance, and Damages, claiming he never sold the land and that the document he thumbmarked was a new tax declaration, not a deed of sale. The trial court ruled in favor of Benedicto, declaring the deed null and void and ordering reconveyance, damages, and an accounting of fruits from 1931. Petitioners timely filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and original record on appeal. The trial judge later ordered them to amend their record on appeal to include omitted pleadings. Upon filing the amended record six days after the reglementary period, the judge dismissed the appeal as final and executory and granted execution.
ISSUE
The main issues are: (1) whether the trial judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the appeal for late filing of the amended record on appeal, and (2) whether the deed of sale is null and void.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the appeal was a grave abuse of discretion. The amended record on appeal is deemed filed on the date of the original, which was submitted within the reglementary period, as established in Vda. de Oyzon vs. Vinzon. The Court emphasized that litigation should be decided on merits, not technicalities. On the substantive issue, the Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the deed of sale was null and void. The trial court’s factual conclusions, including the improbability of selling a property with a P20,000 house for only P454, are entitled to great weight and were supported by evidence. However, the Court modified the decision by ruling that the accounting of fruits should commence from March 20, 1973 (the date of the purported sale), not from 1931, as administration was left to Benedicto’s wife until that later date. The trial court’s decision was thus affirmed with this modification.