Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3


No 26 enumerates the sources on which the reconstituted certificate of title

may be based. It should be noted that both Sections 2 and 3 thereof list sources
that evidence title or transactions affecting title to property. When Sections 2, 3
and 4 of the law therefore speaks of "any other document," the phrase must refere
to similar documents previously enumerated therein.

par 5

In Dizon v. Discaya, petitioners maintain that since they submitted to the lower
court Exhibits


In determining the appropriate remedy or remedies available, a party aggrieved by a

court order, resolution or decision must first correctly identify the nature of the
order, resolution or decision he intends to assail.Raymundo v. Isagon Vda. de
Suarez, G.R. No. 149017, November 28, 2008, 572 SCRA 384, 404

may be suspended at whatever stage it may be, on considerations of equity, such as
when the --- would result

"the immediate execution of the judgement in the unlawful detainer case will
include the removal of the petitioner's house (from) the lot in question."

WHEREFORE, for the reasons aforesaid,

With the foregoing background, we now rule on the Motion before us.

Equity justifies this course of action. V

It bears to stress

It should also be underscored that the petitioner interposed

Initially, petitioners invoke the liberal application of technical rules31 and

contend that the fact that only the amount of P30.00 was not paid justifies
relaxation of the same. Later in their Reply,32 however, petitioners concede that
the payment of docket fees is not a mere technicality. Nevertheless, they point out
that while full payment of docket fees is indispensable in the perfection of an
appeal, the same admits of exceptions.33 Their case falls under one of the
exceptions, that is, in the name of substantial justice and fair play. According to
petitioners, the dismissal of their appeal for failure to pay P30.00 runs counter
to substantial justice and fair play as the same would deprive them of their right
to justice and render ineffective the amount of P3,000.00, which despite being
indigents, they undertook to pay. To support their case, petitioners cited Andrea
Camposagrado v. Pablo Camposagrado34 and Spouses Gutierrez v. Spouses Valiente35
wherein the Court excused the insufficient payment of docket fees.1wphi1 Moreover,
petitioners raise in the said Reply, albeit for the first time, the argument that
while Republic Act (RA) No. 940636 was still in existent at the time their appeal
was filed before the CA, Section 637 thereof which exempts PAO clients like
themselves from the payment of docket and other fees should be given retroactive

Relaxation of the rule on payment of

appeal fee is unwarranted in this case.


18, 2011 citing
United Overseas Bank v. Ros G.R. No. 171532, August 7, 2007, 529 SCRA 334, 353
the Court explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud
the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the
rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court, the liberal
doctrine enunciated in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., and not the strict regulations
set in Manchester, will apply. It has been on record that the Court, in several
instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in
order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the
merits. In the case of La Salette College v. Pilotin,[13] LA SALETTE COLLEGE and
JESUS T. BAYAUA vs. VICTOR C. PILOTIN G.R. No. 149227. December 11, 2003 the Court

Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate

docket fees, we also recognize that its strict application is qualified by the
following: first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows
only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be used by
the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with
the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection
in consideration of all attendant circumstances.[14]

While there is a crying need to unclog court dockets on the one hand, there is, on
the other, a greater demand for resolving genuine disputes fairly and equitably,
[15] for it is far better to dispose of a case on the merit which is a primordial
end, rather than on a technicality that may result in injustice. Santos v. Court of
Appeals, 323 Phil. 762, 770 (1996).

We held in another case:

x x x It bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to
effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to
or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice,
courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm
that, on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights,
and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to
frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court
to suspend the Rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[20] Cua, Jr.
v. Tan, G.R. Nos. 181455-56, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 645, 687.

Considering, however, that the case at bench has been pending for more than 30
years and the records thereof are already before this Court, a remand of the case
to the CA would only unnecessarily prolong its resolution. In the higher interest
of substantial justice and to spare the parties from further delay, the Court will
resolve the case on the merits.


Their silence or inaction to point this out to the Clerk of Court who computed
their docket fees, therefore, becomes highly suspect, and thus, sufficient for this
Court to conclude that they have crossed beyond the threshold of good faith and
into the area of fraud. Clearly, there was an effort to defraud the government in
avoiding to pay the correct docket fees. Consequently, the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case. David Lu Vs. Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., et
al./Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., et al. Vs. David Lu/ John Lu Ym and Ludo & Luym Development
Corporation Vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals of Cebu City (former twentieth division),
et al., G.R. No. 153690/G.R. No. 157381/G.R. No. 170889, August 4, 2009.

"Better Place"

I'll tell the world, I'll sing a song

It's a better place since you came along
Since you came along
Your touch is sunlight through the trees
Your kisses are the ocean breeze
Everything's alright when you're with me

And ah ah ah ah ah, you're my favorite thing

Ah ah ah ah ah, all the love that you bring
But it feels like I've opened my eyes again
And the colors are golden and bright again
There's a song in my heart, I feel like I belong
It's a better place since you came along
It's a better place since you came along

I see the whole world in your eyes

It's like I've known you all my life
We just feel so right
So I pour my heart into your hands
It's like you really understand
You love the way I am

And ah ah ah ah ah, you're my favorite thing

Ah ah ah ah ah, all the happiness you bring
But it feels like I've opened my eyes again
And the colors are golden and bright again
And the sun paints the skies and the wind sings her song
It's a better place since you came along
It's a better place since you came along

Ah ah ah ah ah
Ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh
Ah ah ah ah ah
Ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh

Now I'm alright, now I'm alright

Everything's alright

Cause it feels like I've opened my eyes again

And the colors are golden and bright again
There's a song in my heart, I feel like I belong
It's a better place since you came along
It's a better place since you came along