G.R. NO. 154019 - JULIAN ELBIÑA, VS. FELISA, CELESTINO, CRISTITUTA, SALUD AND EXALTACION, ALL SURNAMED CENIZA, *.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (1) declaring [respondents] as the rightful co-owners of Lots 948 and 1469 described under Original Certificate of Title No. 767 of the Register of Deeds of Mandaue City; (2) declaring as void from the beginning the Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of Pedro Ceniza and Deed of Conveyance, dated July 17, 1973 xxx and the Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of Pedro Ceniza and Confirmation of Ownership, dated May 12, 1981 xxx; (3) declaring void all subsequent documents of transfer in favor of the defendants [including petitioner] and their successor-in-interest affecting Lots 948 and 1469; (4) directing the Office of the City Assessor of Mandaue City to cancel all tax declarations issued to the defendants [including petitioner] and to reinstate the tax declarations of Lots 948 and 1469 in the name of Pedro Ceniza in accordance with Original Certificate of Title No. 767; and (5) ordering defendants [including petitioner] jointly and severally to pay attorney's fees of P20,000.00 and litigation expenses of P10,000.00. Petitioner's counsel of record, Atty. Ervin Estandarte, filed a motion for reconsideration on May 2, 1997. In the meantime, a certain Atty. Mario Cugtas filed a "Formal Notice of Appearance as Collaborating Counsel for Defendants with Motion for Additional Period to File Written Arguments in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration." [4] On June 6, 1997, the trial court granted Atty. Cugtas' motion. [5] When he failed to "file (his) arguments," the trial court granted an additional period of ten days in an order dated June 19, 1997. [6] He finally submitted a memorandum on June 30, 1997. The trial court thereafter denied the motion for reconsideration on July 15, 1997. [7] A copy of the order was received by Atty. Estandarte on July 23, 1997. Atty. Cugtas received his copy on August 7, 1997. On the same day, Atty. Cugtas filed a notice of appeal [8] but the appeal was dismissed by the trial court for having been filed late. [9] On October 10, 1997, petitioner filed a "Petition for Relief from Denial of Appeal." [10] He claimed that the order denying the motion for reconsideration was received by the Bernaldez and Estandarte Law Office on July 23, 1997. Atty. Estandarte, however, did not act on the order anymore since his legal services had already been terminated. The new counsel, Atty. Cugtas, received a copy of the order only on August 7, 1997 and he filed a notice of appeal on the same day. On December 22, 1997, the trial court dismissed the petition for relief. [11] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration [12] but the same was denied on February 2, 1998. [13] Petitioner then sought to set aside the trial court's orders via a special civil action for certiorari [14] in the Court of Appeals which, however, dismissed it [15] and also denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration. [16] Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. [17] Petitioner questions the t