Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual v.Sps.

Marilyn Lim and George Lim and the Registry

of Deeds of Valenzuela City, G.R. No. 191837, September 19, 2012
Facts:
The present controversy involves a parcel of land located in Valenzuela City registered
under the name of the Spouses Lim (or private respondents). On September 2004, the
petitioner filed before the Office of the Regional Agrarian Reform (RARAD) for Region
IV-A a petition to be recognized as a tenant of a property located in Valenzuela City
against one Deato. At that time, the property was under Deatos name. During the
pendency of the petition, Deato sold the property to Spouses Lim. The sale was
registered on December 2004 leading to the issuance of a TCT in favor of the private
respondents. Thus, the petitioner filed a motion on March 2005 to implead the Spouses
Lim.
On December 2005, the petition was granted by the Regional Adjudicator (RA). The
dispositive portion of the decision includes, inter alia, that the petitioner is the tenant of
the subject land by succession from her deceased father and that she should be
subrogated to the rights of the private respondents. The judgment of the RA became
final. Thus, Consolacion filed a motion for execution to which a writ of execution was
issued by the RA on January 2008. Seven days after, the petitioner filed a petition against
the private respondents and the Registrar of Deeds praying for the issuance of an order
directing Spouses Lim to accept the amount of P10million which she undertook to
tender, declare the property redeemed and cancel the TCT.
RARAD: The petition was given due course by the RA, the dispositive portion of the
decision stating that the property is lawfully redeemed, ordering the private respondents
to accept the amount consigned with the DARAB, execute a deed of redemption in favor
of the petitioner and directing the RD to cancel the TCT registered in the name of the
private respondents and issue a new one in favor of the petitioner.
DARAB: The decision of RARAD was reversed. Consolacion moved for reconsideration
which the DARAB denied.
CA: Consolacion filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The CA
did not give due course to the petition due to the following technical grounds: a) failure
of counsel to indicate in the petition his MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Exemption
Number and b) the jurat of Consolacions verification and certification against nonforum-shopping failed to indicate any competent evidence of Consolacions identity
apart from her community tax certificate.

She moved for reconsideration but was denied.

Issue: WON the petition should be denied due to the unexplained failure to comply with
basic procedural requirements of the Rules of Court.
Held: Yes, the petition should be denied.
Consolacion and her counsel claimed inadvertence and negligence but they did not
explain the circumstances thereof. Absent valid and compelling reasons, the requested
leniency and liberality in the observance of procedural rules appears to be an
afterthought, hence, cannot be granted. The CA saw no compelling need meriting the
relaxation of the rules. Neither did the Court see any.
The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally
construed. However, in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence
of a satisfactory and persuasive explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberal
interpretation were able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an
exceptional treatment. It was never the Courts intent to forge a bastion for erring
litigants to violate the rules with impunity.
This Court will not condone a cavalier attitude towards procedural rules. It is the duty of
every member of the bar to comply with these rules. They are not at liberty to seek
exceptions should they fail to observe these rules and rationalize their omission by
harking on liberal construction.
While it IS the negligence of Consolacion's counsel that led to this unfortunate result, she
is bound by such.