G.R. No. 140436 - CORNELIA P. CUSI - HERNANDEZ, VS. SPOUSES EDUARDO DIAZ AND AMELIA MANGAHAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, for being insufficient in substance, the petition for review should be, as it is hereby, DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED." [2] The second assailed Resolution denied the Motion for Reconsideration. [3] The Facts Petitioner filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Norzagaray, Bulacan, an accion publiciana against herein respondents. She alleged that she was the registered owner of a paraphernal property situated in Minuyan, Norzagaray, Bulacan, which was covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. T-2435. [4] In a Contract to Sell, [5] she agreed to sell respondents a 300-square-meter portion of the disputed land, in consideration of a down payment of P6,000 and sixty consecutive monthly installments of P900 each. For a period of twelve months starting from January 1985 to December 1985, respondents paid only a total of P15,445. [6] Despite several demands, they allegedly failed to pay their outstanding obligation in the amount of P45,555. On September 12, 1995, petitioner sent them a notarized letter rescinding the Contract. Because they failed to vacate the property, she instituted the aforecited action in the MTC of Norzagaray. On May 12, 1998, the MTC rendered its Decision [7] in favor of petitioner. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, reversed the MTC and dismissed the Complaint. In its May 5, 1999 Order, the RTC likewise denied the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. [8] Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals (CA) denied due course to the appeal filed by petitioner because of her alleged failure to comply with Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. It ratiocinated as follows: "An examination of the petition reveals that petitioner failed to accompany it with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as would support the allegations in the petition as required under Sec. 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure." The CA justified the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration in this wise: "Justifying her non-submission of certified true copies of material portions of the record, petitioner submits that she believed that since the petition was solely premised on one legal issue, 'no material portions of the record . . . had to be attached to the petition'. Petitioner nonetheless submitted, along with her motion, the pertinent documents. "The above-said Sec. 2 of Rule 42 x x x is not without reason. How can this Court judiciously act on the petition without being able to assess the pertinent document/s relevant to the assailed decision? That a legal question is raised in the petition does not excuse non-compliance with the Rules. "This Court not being satisfied that petitioner's `non-compliance was not attributable to the party, despite due diligence on his part, and that there are no highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the court to make such other disposition as it may deem just and equitable' (SC Adm. Circular No. 3-96), the