G.R. No. 159116 - SPS. NESTOR AND FELICIDAD DADIZON, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND SPS. DOMINADOR AND ELSA MOCORRO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds a preponderance of evidence in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants and hereby declares plaintiffs as owners of the seventy eight (78) square meters of the lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 535 and/or TD No. 68 in the name of defendant Felicidad Dadizon. The Court likewise orders the defendant spouses, a. To deliver the said seventy eight (78) square meters portion to plaintiffs and to demolish whatever structures defendants might have erected thereon; b. To pay plaintiffs the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS P10,000.00 for attorney's fees and litigation expenses and the costs of suit. The Court orders the Provincial Assessor of Naval, Biliran to cancel Tax Declaration No. 531 T.M. and 608 in the name of Felicidad Dadizon and any other tax declaration relative to the property in question. [9] Ruling of the RTC On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Naval, Biliran affirmed the MTC's findings through its decision of May 17, 2001, [10] to wit: Factual findings and conclusions of the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect absent any showing of a fact or any circumstance which the court a quo failed to appreciate and which would change the result if it were considered. WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds that the decision of the court a quo as correct; hereby affirming the said decision in toto . Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Dadizons filed a notice of appeal. Initially, the CA required the Dadizons to file their appellant's brief . Later on, however, the Mocorros moved to dismiss the Dadizons' appeal on the ground that the mode of appeal they had adopted was erroneous. Agreeing with the Mocorros, the CA dismissed the Dadizons' appeal through its resolution dated February 26, 2003. [11] The CA denied the Dadizons' motion for reconsideration on June 30, 2003. [12] Hence, the Dadizons have come to this Court to assail the dismissal of their appeal and the denial of their motion for reconsideration. Our Ruling The petition for review on certiorari lacks merit. I The mode of appeal vis-à-vis the decision of the RTC adopted by the Dadizons was undoubtedly wrong. They should have filed a petition for review in accordance with Rule 42, Rules of Court , which was the correct mode of appeal, considering that the RTC had rendered the decision in question in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The error of the Dadizons was inexcusable and inexplicable. The Court has followed a strict policy against misdirected or erroneous appeals since February 27, 1990, when it issued the following instructions and caution in Murillo v. Consul : [13] At present then, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua , there is no way by which judgments of regional trial courts may be appealed to the Supreme Court except by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 17 of th