G.R. No. L-18530; May 30, 1962
JOSE ALCANTARA, petitioner, vs. DIONISIO YAP, PACIFICO YAP, and HON. NICASIO YATCO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Dionisio Yap and Pacifico Yap filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner Jose Alcantara. They alleged they purchased Lots 2 and 3, Block 359 of the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision from J.M. Tuason & Co. under installment contracts to sell, and that Alcantara was occupying a 100-square-meter portion without consent. Alcantara, in his answer, claimed ownership by inheritance and asserted that the lot he occupied was located west of A. Bonifacio Road (allegedly the old “carretera provincial de Rizal para Novaliches”) and was therefore outside the boundaries of the land covered by J.M. Tuason & Co.’s Torrens title (TCT No. 31977). He also pointed to a pending case (Alcantara v. J.M. Tuason & Co.) involving the same property.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Yaps, declaring them innocent purchasers for value whose title, derived from J.M. Tuason & Co., was indefeasible. The court took judicial notice of a prior Supreme Court decision affirming the Tuason title and found Alcantara failed to present any title, perfect or imperfect, under the Land Registration Act. The court ordered Alcantara to vacate and pay monthly damages. His motion for reconsideration and new trial was denied. When Alcantara filed a record on appeal, the trial judge disallowed it as pro forma, holding that his motion for reconsideration did not specify findings of fact or conclusions of law he was contesting, thereby effectively denying his right to appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in disallowing Alcantara’s appeal by declaring his motion for reconsideration as pro forma.

RULING

Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, set aside the order disallowing the appeal, and directed the lower court to approve the record on appeal. The Court held that Alcantara’s motion for reconsideration was not pro forma. A motion is pro forma if it does not point out specifically the findings or conclusions in the judgment supposed to be erroneous. Here, Alcantara’s motion sufficiently complied with this requirement. He specifically argued that the decision was contrary to law and unsupported by evidence because his property, situated west of A. Bonifacio Road, was outside the metes and bounds of J.M. Tuason & Co.’s registered title. He cited evidence, including testimony and exhibits, to support his claim of possession and tax payments. The trial judge’s error lay in treating the motion as a general denial when it in fact raised a specific, substantive legal issue: the identity and location of the property relative to the registered title’s boundaries. This was not a challenge to the validity of the Tuason title per se, which the Court had upheld in other cases, but a distinct claim that the disputed parcel was not covered by that title at all. By incorrectly declaring the motion pro forma, the trial court capriciously cut off Alcantara’s statutory right to appeal on a meritorious jurisdictional question. The appeal should therefore be given due course.