G.R. NO. 160895 - JOSE R. MARTINEZ, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the LRA manifested that this lot should not have been adjudicated to Martinez for lack of jurisdiction. This letter was referred by the RTC to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. [7] On 10 October 2003, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed Decision, [8] reversing the RTC and instead ordering the dismissal of the petition for registration. In light of the opposition filed by the OSG, the appellate court found the evidence presented by Martinez as insufficient to support the registration of the subject lots. The Court of Appeals concluded that the oral evidence presented by Martinez merely consisted of general declarations of ownership, without alluding to specific acts of ownership performed by him or his predecessors-in-interest. It likewise debunked the documentary evidence presented by Martinez, adjudging the same as either inadmissible or ineffective to establish proof of ownership. No motion for reconsideration appears to have been filed with the Court of Appeals by Martinez, who instead directly assailed its Decision before this Court through the present petition. We cannot help but observe that the petition, eight (8) pages in all, was apparently prepared with all deliberate effort to attain nothing more but the perfunctory. The arguments raised center almost exclusively on the claim that the OSG no longer had personality to oppose the petition, or appeal its allowance by the RTC, following the order of general default. Starkly put, "the [OSG] has no personality to raise any issue at all under the circumstances pointed out hereinabove." [9] Otherwise, it is content in alleging that "[Martinez] presented sufficient and persuasive proof to substantiate the fact that his title to Lot Nos. 464-A and 464-B is worth the confirmation he seeks to be done in this registration case"; [10] and that the RTC had since issued a new Order dated 1 September 2003, confirming Martinez's title over Lot No. 370. In its Comment dated 24 May 2004, [11] the OSG raises several substantial points, including the fact that it had duly opposed Martinez's application for registration before the RTC; that jurisprudence and the Rules of Court acknowledge that a party in default is not precluded from appealing the unfavorable judgment; that the RTC had no jurisdiction over Lot No. 370 since its technical description was not published in the Official Gazette; and that as found by the Court of Appeals the evidence presented by Martinez is insufficient for registering the lots in his name. [12] Despite an order from the Court requiring him to file a Reply to the Comment, counsel for Martinez declined to do so, explaining, among others, that "he felt he would only be taxing the collective patience of this [Court] if he merely repeats x x x what petitioner had succinctly stated x x x on pages four (4) to seven (7) of his said petition." Counsel for petitioner was accordingly fined by the Court. [13] The Court's patience is taxed less by redundant