National Housing Authority vs. Roxas

A dismissal of a petition for reconstitution for failure to comply with jurisdictional requirements does not bar the refiling of the same petition, as the dismissal does not amount to an adjudication on the merits and cannot serve as a basis for res judicata, provided the proper venue remains the same.

Petitioner National Housing Authority (NHA), successor of People's Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) by virtue of P.D. No. 757, was the registered owner of two large parcels of land in Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1356, encompassing almost the entire Diliman Estate and subdivided into approximately 17,387 lots sold to beneficiaries. On June 11, 1988, fire destroyed the QCRD premises, including the original and owner's duplicate copies of TCT No. 1356. Reconstitution proceedings are governed by Republic Act No. 26, while the procedural requirements for certiorari petitions are found in Rules 65 and 46 of the Rules of Court.

People's Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC), NHA's predecessor by virtue of P.D. No. 757, was the registered owner of two large parcels of land in what was then the Municipality of San Juan Del Monte, Rizal, now part of Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 1356 of the Quezon City Register of Deeds (QCRD). The parcels, with estimated areas of 386,732.40 square meters and 15,555,534.60 square meters, encompassed almost the entire Diliman Estate and comprised various subdivisions including Project 1 through Project 7, North Bago-Bantay, U.P. Village, Sikatuna Village, and other barangays. TCT No. 1356 was subdivided into approximately 17,387 lots, which were sold and disposed of to NHA's beneficiaries. Of these, only 389 lots either remained undisposed or had sales contracts executed but individual TCTs had not yet issued.

In 1987, NHA delivered its owner's copy of TCT No. 1356 to the QCRD to facilitate partial cancellations arising from deeds of sale in favor of beneficiaries. On June 11, 1988, fire razed the entire QCRD premises, destroying the original and owner's duplicate copies of TCT No. 1356 along with many other records. On March 12, 1999, NHA filed a petition for reconstitution of TCT No. 1356 in the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 227, docketed as LRC Case No. Q-99-11347. NHA attached photocopies of the technical description, a subdivision plan, a QCRD certification of the title's destruction, a photocopy of TCT No. 1356 from NHA's records, and a list of the remaining 389 lots.

The RTC set the petition for initial hearing on April 13, 1999 and directed NHA to submit twelve copies of the petition, certified true copies or originals of the annexes, certified true copies of tax declarations and tax receipts, and other jurisdictional requirements. NHA failed to comply and did not appear at the hearing, prompting the RTC to archive the case. On December 27, 2000, the RTC denied the petition for lack of merit, expressly barring any future reconstitution petition for TCT No. 1356 in any other court. NHA sought reconsideration, explaining that it was ready to comply with all requirements except the certified true copies of tax declarations and tax receipts, which the Quezon City Assessor's Office had not yet completed due to the voluminous documents involved. The RTC set the motion for hearing on May 8, 2001 and directed NHA to comply with the legal requirements to demonstrate good faith.

NHA submitted twelve copies of its petition with annexes, original copies of tax declarations covering 31 subdivided lots, and a letter from the QC Assessor's Office regarding the unfulfilled request for tax declarations and receipts. At the RTC's order, NHA also filed a memorandum attaching a certified true copy of a photocopy of TCT No. 1356. Nonetheless, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on May 30, 2001 and June 29, 2001, directing NHA to file an action for confirmation of title under the Land Registration Act instead. NHA received the denial on June 20, 2001 and filed its notice of appeal on July 4, 2001. The RTC dismissed the appeal as filed out of time, noting that NHA had filed its motion for reconsideration on February 8, 2001 — the last day of the original 15-day period — leaving only one day to perfect the appeal after receipt of the denial, which expired on June 21, 2001. NHA then elevated the matter to the CA via certiorari, but the CA dismissed the petition for failure to attach certified true copies of all relevant pleadings and documents as required under Rule 65. The CA denied reconsideration on the additional ground that the notice of appeal had been filed out of time.

• Dismissal on Technical Grounds: NHA argued that the CA erred in dismissing its petition for certiorari on technical grounds rather than on the merits.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion by RTC: NHA maintained that the RTC's dismissal with prejudice of its petition for reconstitution was made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and that the CA should have so recognized.

• Validity of RTC Dismissal: The OSG conceded that the RTC's dismissal of the reconstitution petition was valid, given NHA's failure to comply with jurisdictional requirements, particularly the submission of tax declarations and tax receipts.
• No Jurisdiction Yet Acquired: The OSG argued that the RTC had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the petition at the time of dismissal, as the jurisdictional requirements had not been satisfied.
• Dismissal Not With Prejudice: The OSG maintained that the dismissal was not with prejudice, because what the RTC proscribed was the filing of a reconstitution petition for TCT No. 1356 in another court that would constitute forum shopping — not the refiling in the same court.
• Timeliness of Appeal Ruling: The OSG contended that the RTC correctly ruled on whether NHA had timely filed its notice of appeal.

• Compliance with Certiorari Requirements: Whether the CA correctly dismissed NHA's petition for certiorari for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 65, specifically the attachment of certified true copies of relevant pleadings and documents.
• Timeliness of Appeal: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing NHA's notice of appeal as filed out of time.
• Right to Refile: Whether the RTC's dismissal of NHA's petition for reconstitution, albeit with prejudice, bars NHA from filing a new petition for reconstitution of TCT No. 1356.

• Compliance with Certiorari Requirements: Yes. The CA correctly dismissed the petition, NHA having failed to attach certified true copies of the petition for reconstitution and other relevant RTC orders and resolutions, as required under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
• Timeliness of Appeal: No. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the appeal, NHA having filed its motion for reconsideration on the last day of the reglementary period, leaving only one day to perfect the appeal, which expired before the notice of appeal was filed.
• Right to Refile: No, the dismissal does not bar refiling. The RTC's dismissal did not amount to an adjudication on the merits and thus cannot serve as a basis for res judicata; NHA may refile its petition for reconstitution.

• Compliance with Certiorari Requirements: Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, which governs original cases filed in the CA, requires that the petition be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, together with such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The rule expressly provides that failure to comply with any of these requirements shall be sufficient ground for dismissal. The CA's September 7, 2001 resolution revealed that NHA did not attach the petition for reconstitution filed with the trial court and other resolutions or orders of the court before its dismissal — documents considered relevant and pertinent. These omitted documents were essential in a special civil action for certiorari, a proceeding by which a superior court determines whether the respondent court acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal was therefore proper.

• Timeliness of Appeal: Under Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the period for taking an ordinary appeal is 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration interrupts the running of the period, which begins to run again from the movant's receipt of the order denying the motion. NHA received the RTC resolution on January 24, 2001, giving it until February 8, 2001 to appeal. It filed its motion for reconsideration on February 8, 2001 — the last day — interrupting the period and leaving a balance of one day. NHA received the denial of its motion for reconsideration on June 20, 2001, meaning the remaining one day expired on June 21, 2001. Its notice of appeal filed on July 4, 2001 was thus undeniably out of time. NHA's reliance on Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, which allows a fresh 15-day period from receipt of the denial of a motion for reconsideration, was rejected because the issue of whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion must be determined on the basis of the rules and jurisprudence prevailing at the time, not subsequent developments.

• Right to Refile: The RTC's December 27, 2000 resolution and its May 30, 2001 and June 29, 2001 orders intended to foreclose NHA's option to refile. However, the bar was not insuperable. The venue for a new petition would still be Quezon City, as the parcels of land are located entirely within Quezon City, making the RTC in Quezon City the proper court. More importantly, at the time the orders of dismissal were issued, NHA had not yet established the facts essential for the RTC to proceed on its petition for reconstitution, as the jurisdictional requirements had not been satisfied. The dismissal therefore did not amount to an adjudication on the merits and was not a viable basis for a bar by res judicata. The RTC's stated rationale of preventing forum shopping was unnecessary, as the venue remained the same court.

• Fresh Period Rule (Neypes Doctrine) — Under Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of the order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration is allowed for filing a notice of appeal in the RTC. The Court declined to apply this doctrine retroactively to NHA, holding that the issue of grave abuse of discretion must be determined based on the rules and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of the RTC's action, not on subsequent doctrinal developments.

• Perfection of Appeal as Jurisdictional — Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional; failure to comply renders the questioned decision final and executory. Where a motion for reconsideration is filed on the last day of the original period, only the balance — one day — remains to perfect the appeal after receipt of the denial.

• Dismissal Without Adjudication on the Merits Does Not Bar Refiling — A dismissal of a petition for failure to comply with jurisdictional requirements, issued before the court acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter, does not constitute an adjudication on the merits and cannot serve as a basis for res judicata. The petitioner may refile the same petition, provided the proper venue is observed.

• Requirements for Certiorari Petitions — Under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari must be accompanied by certified true copies of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. Failure to comply with any of these requirements is sufficient ground for dismissal.

• "The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition." — This quotation from Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, as cited by the Court, establishes the mandatory nature of the documentary requirements for certiorari petitions and the consequence of non-compliance, forming the basis for affirming the CA's dismissal.

• "It is settled that perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the questioned decision final and executory." — This passage, quoted from the CA's October 27, 2003 resolution, articulates the jurisdictional character of timely perfection of appeal, which the Supreme Court adopted in sustaining the RTC's disallowance of NHA's belated notice of appeal.

• "Considering that at the time the orders of dismissal were issued NHA had not yet established the facts essential for the RTC to proceed on its petition for reconstitution, the RTC's dismissal did not amount to an adjudication on the merits of the petition and was thus not a viable basis for a bar by res judicata." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the Court's clarification that NHA may refile its petition for reconstitution, distinguishing a dismissal for non-compliance with jurisdictional requirements from an adjudication on the merits.

• Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633 — Cited for the "fresh period" rule allowing 15 days from receipt of denial of a motion for reconsideration to file a notice of appeal. The Court distinguished this case, declining to apply Neypes retroactively because the issue of grave abuse of discretion must be judged by the rules prevailing at the time of the RTC's action.

• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Governs the contents and filing of original petitions in the CA, requiring certified true copies of the judgment or order subject of the petition, relevant pleadings and documents, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. Applied to uphold the CA's dismissal of NHA's certiorari petition for failure to attach the required documents.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for certiorari be accompanied by certified true copies of all relevant pleadings and documents. The CA cited this provision in its September 7, 2001 resolution dismissing NHA's petition.

• Section 3, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Provides that the period for ordinary appeal is 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order, interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. Applied to determine that NHA's notice of appeal was filed out of time, as only one day remained after its motion for reconsideration was filed on the last day of the reglementary period.

• Section 15, Republic Act No. 26 — Provides that dismissal of a reconstitution petition shall not preclude the right of the party to file an application for confirmation of title under the Land Registration Act. The RTC cited this provision in its May 30, 2001 order, directing NHA to pursue confirmation of title instead of reconstitution.

Conchita Carpio Morales (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Martin S. Villarama Jr., and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno concurred with the decision of Justice Lucas P. Bersamin. No separate concurring opinions were noted.