AGDEPPA vs. HEIRS OF IGNACIO BONETE

AGDEPPA vs. HEIRS OF IGNACIO BONETE
G.R. No. 164436, January 15, 2010

Nachura, J.:

Facts: In 1979, respondent Dorotea Bonete, widow of the late Igancio Bonete, obtained a loan in the amount of P55,000.00 from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)in order to buy farm implements. The loan was secured by a parcel of agricultural land. In 1982, Dorotea received a notice of collection from DBP. Respondents alleged that herein petitioner and counsel, Atty. Littie Sarah A. Agdeppa (Littie Sarah) accompanied Dorotea to DBP and obligated herself to pay the loan. Thereafter, Dorotea was made to sign a document as Little Sarah’s security for the amount which the latter paid to DBP in connection with the said loan. Since 1982, Littie Sarah and her representatives had been gradually easing them out of the subject property and that they were ordered to stop the cultivation of their respective ricefields. Eventually, respondents were forcibly ejected from the subject property.

On this account, respondents inquired from the Register of Deeds and found that the title to the subject property, which was in the name of respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, the late Ignacio Bonete, had already been canceled and transferred to Littie Sarah under TCT No. T-75454 by virtue of a purported deed of sale. According to Dorotea, Littie Sarah took advantage of her by letting her sign a contract, ostensibly as security for the loan from DBP, which later turned out to be a deed of sale. Thus, respondents filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession and/or Annulment of Deed of Sale of the Subject Property before the RTC. Littie Sarah filed a Motion to Dismiss. Respondents filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On May 21, 1990, the RTC issued an order dismissing the complaint and held that respondents were not real parties in interest and lacked the personality to sue. Respondents went to the CA which reversed and set aside the RTC Order, and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings because Dorotea, being the former owner of the subject property, was a real party in interest. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the respondents are real party in interest.

Held: While it is true that respondents committed a procedural infraction before the RTC, such infraction does not justify the dismissal of the case. Misjoinder of parties does not warrant the dismissal of the action.

It bears stressing that TCT No. T-56923, covering the subject property, was issued in the name of Dorotea. This is established by the record, and petitioners themselves admit this fact. However, because TCT No. T-75454, allegedly issued in favor of Littie Sarah, and the purported deed of sale, allegedly executed by Dorotea in favor of Littie Sarah, are not on record. Considering the allegations in the pleadings, it is best that a trial on the merits be conducted.

A liberal construction of the Rules is apt in situations involving excusable formal errors in a pleading, as long as the same do not subvert the essence of the proceeding, and they connote at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules. The Court is not precluded from rectifying errors of judgment, if blind and stubborn adherence to procedure would result in the sacrifice of substantial justice for technicality. To deprive respondents, particularly Dorotea, of their claims over the subject property on the strength of sheer technicality would be a travesty of justice and equity.