G.R. No. 146678 - SPOUSES FELIPE R. ANGELES AND GREGORIA ANGELES, VS. SPOUSES FERMIN TAN AND TERESITA TAN, IRENEO TAN AND TERESA SO, MARIANO TAN AND CORAZON CO, AND HON. GEORGE MACLI-ING, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 100, QUEZON CITY.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and finding that the causes of action, the reliefs sought for, together with the parties, are the same or are similar, except with the inclusion of Heirs of Prudencio Reyes, represented by Domingo Reyes in Civil Case No. Q-89-3838, and the complaint in Civil Case No. Q-88-195, and the complaint in Civil Case No. Q-88-1195 was withdrawn upon motion of the plaintiffs counsel except the hearing on the defendants counterclaim, this Court, taking into consideration the ruling in Pino v. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 434, finds the defendants thru counsel to have duly proven his Special and/or Affirmative Defenses thru preponderance of evidence , hence, Civil Cases Nos. Q-88-195 and Q-89-3838, are hereby dismissed without pronouncement as to cost. In connection with the Counterclaim of defendants in these cases, this Court after a thorough appraisal and analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding these cases, equity dictates that it would be like imposing a penalty on the part of any person to honestly litigate his or her rights and interest before a court of law, and judging from these cases, no harassment or malice aforethought with the deliberate intent to cast dishonor or social humiliation against the defendants was proven by the latter, hence, the Counterclaim in these cases is likewise dismissed. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Petitioners motion to reconsider the May 20, 1993 Order of the trial court was denied by Order [13] of September 20, 1993. Petitioners thereupon filed a Notice of Appeal [14] which was given due course by the trial court by Order [15] of October 19, 1993. In the meantime, petitioners filed a petition for review dated October 19, 1993 with the Court of Appeals (CA) praying that the May 20, 1993 and September 20, 1993 Orders of the trial court be annulled and set aside and that the case be reinstated and tried on the merits. The petition for review was, by Resolution of November 18, 1993, [16] denied by the CA. Petitioners thereupon filed their appellants brief, proffering before the CA that: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT STATING CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY THE FACTS AND THE LAW ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS BASED. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND IN NOT RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT CALLED DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED AUGUST 15, 1978. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE ON THE ANOMALOUS TITLE OF THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES . [17] (Underscoring supplied) By Decision of November 21, 2000, the CA dismissed petitioners appeal both on procedural and substantive grounds. Finding the appeal to have been filed out of time, the CA held: [ A ] lthough the plaintiffs-appellants notice of appeal dated October 6, 1993 was given due course , yet, plaintiffs-appellants did not proceed with their appeal. Instead, they filed through counsel a Petition for Review dated October 19, 1993 which was not only filed out of time but also,