CANTON v.
CITY OF CEBU (2007)
Carpio, J. | Rule 42
Petitioner: Sofia Canton (deceased), represented by co-administrators of her estate,
Macaraig Canton, Jr. and Juan Bolo; Domingo Antigua; Rogelio Uy; Juan Bolo
Respondents: City of Cebu and/or Metro Cebu Development Project (MCDP)
Summary: Petitioners initially prevailed in their complaint of forcible entry against
respondents before the MTC, but the RTC reversed. On appeal, petitioners did not attach
to their petition copies of the complaint, answer, parties’ position papers filed with MTC,
and parties’ appeal memoranda filed with RTC, in violation of Sec. 2, Rule 42. Hence, CA
dismissed it outright. On MR, petitioners still did not attach the documents, stubbornly
arguing that such are not required. SC held that CA did not err because Sec. 2, Rule 42
actually requires such, and that the submission of supporting documents has a practical
purpose (see doctrine).
Doctrine: The CA has the duty to check the exercise of this discretion, to see to it that the
submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory. The practical aspect of
this duty is to enable the CA to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of
prima facie merit in the petition.
Facts
Employees of MCDP identified the disputed area as part of the South Cebu
Reclamation Project. MCDP, with the assistance of the Office of the Mayor of Cebu
City, removed the barbed wire fence from the disputed area on the ground that it
was an illegal construction for lack of permit.
Petitioners filed a case for forcible entry before the MTC Talisay, Cebu. They
stated that their property is in San Roque, Talisay and is outside the South Cebu
Reclamation Project, showing tax declarations to prove their ownership.
MTC ruled in favor of petitioners, but RTC reversed, declaring the disputed area
as foreshore land that is not subject of any lease agreement between the
government and any private individual. Hence, the disputed area should be
considered as part of the public domain belonging to the State.
CA dismissed appeal outright for failure of petitioners to attach to their petition
copies of the complaint, answer, parties’ position papers filed with MTC, and
parties’ appeal memoranda filed with RTC, in violation of Sec. 2, Rule 42. In their
MR, petitioners still did not submit documents. They merely said that the CA was
overly harsh in applying the Rules, applying technicality rather than substance in
disposing their petition. CA dismissed MR. Hence this Rule 45 petition before SC.
Issue, Held
Did CA err in its outright dismissal of the petition? – NO
Ratio
Petitioners argue that Section 2, Rule 42 does not require any of the pleadings
enumerated by the Court of Appeals. Moreover, it says that if CA ruling is upheld,
practice before the CA would be reduced to a guessing game as to what pleading
will satisfactorily support the petition in the mind of the court.
BUT Section 2, Rule 42 states: “Form and contents. — The petition shall be filed
in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being
indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall xxx (d) be accompanied by clearly
legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of
both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial
Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and
other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the
petition.
It is not disputed that it is petitioner who knows best what pleadings or material
portions of the record of the case would support the allegations in the petition.
Petitioner’s discretion in choosing the documents to be attached is however not
unbridled. The CA has the duty to check the exercise of this discretion, to see
to it that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory.
The practical aspect of this duty is to enable the CA to determine at the
earliest possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition.
Per Sec. 3, Rule 42, if petitioner fails to comply with the submission of "documents
which should accompany the petition," it "shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal thereof.”
The right to appeal is not a natural right. It is a mere statutory privilege, and it may
be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
DENIED.
