[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
321 views2 pages

Gipa VS Southern Luzon Institute

This case involves a land ownership dispute between SLI and petitioners over a 7,516 square meter property covered by an OCT. The RTC ruled in favor of SLI's ownership claim. The petitioners appealed but failed to fully pay appeal fees, being short P30. The CA dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the full amount. The petitioners argue the dismissal was too harsh for such a small amount. However, the Supreme Court upholds the dismissal, noting the petitioners failed to provide any explanation for not paying the remaining P30 in over 9 months despite the CA's leniency.

Uploaded by

zane
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
321 views2 pages

Gipa VS Southern Luzon Institute

This case involves a land ownership dispute between SLI and petitioners over a 7,516 square meter property covered by an OCT. The RTC ruled in favor of SLI's ownership claim. The petitioners appealed but failed to fully pay appeal fees, being short P30. The CA dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the full amount. The petitioners argue the dismissal was too harsh for such a small amount. However, the Supreme Court upholds the dismissal, noting the petitioners failed to provide any explanation for not paying the remaining P30 in over 9 months despite the CA's leniency.

Uploaded by

zane
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GIPA VS SOUTHERN LUZON INSTITUTE

GR. NO. 177425 JUN 18, 2014


FACTS:

SLI alleged that it is the absolute owner of a 7,516-square meter parcel of land
situated in Brgy. Poblacion,Bulan, Sorsogon covered by Original Certificate of
Title(OCT) No. P-28928. However, petitioners and their co-defendants who had been
informally occupying a portion of the said property refused to vacate the same despite
demand. Hence, SLI sought that they be ordered to immediately vacate the premises,
turn over the same to SLI, and pay compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and cost of
suit.
RTC: Finding SLI to have proven its ownership of the property by
preponderance of evidence, the RTC rendered aDecision10 in its favor on January 5,
2005.
CA: dismissed the appeal since it was not shown that the appellate court docket
fees and other lawful fees were paid. CA required petitioners and their co -defendants
to remit within ten days from notice the amount of P30.00 for legal research fund, which
apparently was not included in the P3,000.00 appeal fee previously paid by them.
PET: petitioners invoke the liberal application of technical rules and contend that
the fact that only the amount of P30.00 was not paid justifies relaxation of the same.
Later in their Reply, 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. Their case
falls under one of the exceptions, that is, in According to petitioners, the dismissal of
their appeal for failure to payP30.00 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.
DEF: from the fact that petitioners failed to comply with the CA’s directive to
pay the lacking amount of P30.00 for a period of more than nine months from their
counsel’s receipt of notice, no plausible explanation was tendered by them for such
failure.

ISSUE:
W/N the CA erred dismissing the appeal filed by the PET. for failure to remit the
meager amount of P.30.

HELD:

The Court is not persuaded.


The liberality which petitioners pray for has already been granted to them by the
CA at the outset. It may be recalled that while petitioners paid a substantial part of the
docket fees, they still failed to pay the full amount thereof since their payment was
short of P30.00.
The CA’s leniency over petitioners’ cause did not end there. Although they were
given only 10 days to remit theP30.00 deficiency, the said court allowed an even longer
period of nine months to lapse, apparently in the hope that petitioners’ compliance
would be on its way. But as no payment was remitted
Suffice it to say that “[c]oncomitant to the liberal interpretation of the rules of
procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately
explain his failure to abide by the rules.” Those who seek exemption from the
application of the rule have the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally
meritorious reason warranting such departure. Petitioners’ failure toadvance any
explanation as to why they failed to pay thecorrect docket fees or to complete payment
of the same within the period allowed by the CA is thus fatal to theicause. Hence, a
departure from the rule on the payment of the appeal fee is unwarranted.

You might also like