Valencia (Bukidnon) Farmers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Heirs of Amante P. Cabotaje

A motion for reconsideration that merely reiterates issues already raised and passed upon is not pro forma, and execution of a lower court's judgment does not render the appeal or certiorari petition moot and academic because Rule 39, Section 5 permits restitution or reparation if the executed judgment is reversed.

Petitioner FACOMA is a cooperative marketing association claiming ownership of a parcel of land; respondents are the heirs of Amante P. Cabotaje, who acquired the property through a deed of sale executed by Francisco Estrada. The dispute concerns the validity of that deed and the transfer certificates issued pursuant to it, with FACOMA seeking quieting of title and recovery of ownership and possession. The procedural rules on motions for reconsideration, appeals, and execution of judgments frame the issues.

Petitioner Valencia (Bukidnon) Farmers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (FACOMA), represented by its Board of Directors and Board Chairman David M. Porticos, is a cooperative marketing association. Respondents are the heirs of Amante P. Cabotaje, namely Esther M. Cabotaje, Amante M. Cabotaje, Jr., Julinda M. Cabotaje, Fernando M. Cabotaje, and Christina Imelda M. Cabotaje-Nelam, represented by Esther M. Cabotaje. FACOMA, represented by its directors Sergio Belera and Pedro Pagonzaga, instituted an action for quieting of title and recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land, and damages, against the Heirs of Cabotaje and Francisco Estrada in the RTC of Malaybalay City, Branch 8, Civil Case No. 2663-97.

On December 3, 2010, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of FACOMA and against the defendants. The fallo ordered the annulment and cancellation of the Deed of Sale executed by Francisco Estrada in favor of Amante Cabotaje and all transfer certificates of title issued pursuant thereto; ordered Amante Cabotaje and members of his family, agents, and assigns to refrain from interfering with FACOMA's exercise of ownership and to vacate the properties if and when they succeed in taking possession; ordered the demolition of all improvements introduced thereon in bad faith; and ordered the Register of Deeds to restore the certificates of title issued to FACOMA.

Aggrieved, the Heirs of Cabotaje filed a Motion for Reconsideration, mainly contending that FACOMA had no legal personality to sue and be sued, as Francisco Estrada had asseverated in his Answer; that FACOMA's failure to present the original copy of the re-registration meant it had no capacity to sue; that the Deed of Sale, allegedly admitted by FACOMA during the pre-trial conference and executed and subscribed before a Notary Public, was regular and valid contrary to the RTC's findings; and that the sale made by Francisco Estrada to the Heirs of Cabotaje was binding and valid. On February 3, 2011, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

On February 25, 2011, the Heirs of Cabotaje filed a Notice of Appeal. FACOMA filed a Motion to Dismiss the Notice of Appeal, averring that the Motion for Reconsideration did not toll the running of the reglementary period to appeal because it was pro forma and raised no new issue. On April 4, 2011, the RTC issued a Resolution denying the Notice of Appeal for being filed out of time, deeming the Motion for Reconsideration pro forma and thus not tolling the reglementary period.

The Heirs of Cabotaje then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on June 6, 2011, followed by an Amended Petition for Certiorari dated July 25, 2011. During the pendency of the Certiorari Petition before the CA, FACOMA filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment, which the RTC initially denied; upon FACOMA's Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC issued a Resolution on December 13, 2011 granting execution. The CA later found that the Certiorari Petition assailed the RTC's April 4, 2011 Resolution denying the Notice of Appeal, and that the Motion for Reconsideration was not pro forma because it stressed FACOMA's legal capacity to sue, which was not discussed in the December 3, 2010 Decision.

• Subject of Certiorari Petition: Petitioner argued that the allegations in the Certiorari Petition revealed that what was actually being assailed was the RTC's Decision dated December 3, 2010, not the RTC's Resolution dated April 4, 2011, and that the Certiorari Petition should have been dismissed as an illegal substitute for a lost appeal.
• Pro Forma Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Notice of Appeal, because the Motion for Reconsideration was pro forma and raised no new issue, and therefore did not toll the reglementary period to appeal.
• Moot and Academic: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in failing to declare the Certiorari Petition moot and academic because the RTC had granted FACOMA's Motion for Execution of Judgment during the pendency of the Certiorari Petition.

• Subject of Certiorari Petition: Whether the CA erred in holding that what was assailed by the Certiorari Petition instituted by respondents Heirs of Cabotaje was the RTC's Resolution dated April 4, 2011, which denied the Notice of Appeal.
• Pro Forma Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the CA erred in holding that the Notice of Appeal filed by respondents Heirs of Cabotaje was wrongfully denied by the RTC, considering that respondents' Motion for Reconsideration was not a pro forma motion.
• Moot and Academic: Whether the CA committed an error for failing to declare the Certiorari Petition moot and academic, considering that the RTC had granted the Motion for Execution of Judgment filed by petitioner FACOMA during the pendency of the Certiorari Petition.

• Subject of Certiorari Petition: No. The CA's factual finding that the Certiorari Petition assailed the April 4, 2011 Resolution is supported by the record and binding; the Court is not a trier of facts.
• Pro Forma Motion for Reconsideration: No. A motion for reconsideration that merely reiterates issues already raised and passed upon is not pro forma; respondents' motion specified the findings it challenged and stressed FACOMA's legal capacity to sue, which was not discussed in the RTC Decision.
• Moot and Academic: No. Execution of the RTC judgment did not moot the certiorari petition; Rule 39, Section 5 allows restitution or reparation if the executed judgment is reversed, and an issue of jurisdiction prevents mootness.

• Subject of Certiorari Petition: The CA found as a fact that the Certiorari Petition was centered on the RTC's Resolution dated April 4, 2011, which denied the Notice of Appeal because the Motion for Reconsideration was supposedly pro forma. The CA quoted the Certiorari Petition as alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the April 4, 2011 Resolution and that respondents were left with no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court is not a trier of facts; when supported by substantial evidence, the CA's factual findings are conclusive and binding and are not reviewable. No cogent reason existed to reverse the CA's finding that the Certiorari Petition assailed the April 4, 2011 Resolution, not the December 3, 2010 Decision. Thus, the first submission was denied.
• Pro Forma Motion for Reconsideration: Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence. The RTC found the Motion for Reconsideration pro forma because it did not raise new arguments. However, the mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the court does not make the motion pro forma; otherwise, the movant's remedy would not be reconsideration but a new trial or some other remedy. Coquilla vs. Commission on Elections lists instances when a motion is pro forma: (1) it is a second motion for reconsideration; (2) it does not comply with the rule requiring specification of findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by evidence; (3) it fails to substantiate the alleged errors; (4) it merely alleges that the decision is contrary to law; or (5) the adverse party was not given notice. None of these circumstances attended respondents' Motion for Reconsideration. It was not a second motion; it specified the findings and conclusions claimed to be contrary to law or unsupported by evidence; and it did not merely allege that the Decision was contrary to law without explanation. The CA also correctly invoked Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Uy, citing Security Bank and Trust Company, Inc. vs. Cuenca, that a motion for reconsideration is not pro forma just because it reiterates arguments earlier passed upon and rejected. The CA found that the Motion stressed FACOMA's legal capacity to sue, an issue not discussed in the December 3, 2010 Decision. Thus, the Motion was not pro forma, it tolled the reglementary period to appeal, and the Notice of Appeal should be given due course.
• Moot and Academic: A case or issue is moot and academic only when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that adjudication or declaration would be of no practical value or use. The Rules of Court cover the situation where an already executed judgment may still be reversed or remedied on appeal. Rule 39, Section 5 provides that where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant. Thus, execution of the RTC judgment did not automatically moot the issues; if the appeal prospered, restitution or reparation could still be ordered. Silverio vs. Court of Appeals held that execution does not bar continuance of the appeal on the merits. Regulus Development, Inc. vs. Dela Cruz held that an issue on jurisdiction prevents a petition from becoming moot and academic despite execution. Carpio vs. Court of Appeals explained that execution cannot be considered a supervening event that automatically moots the issues, because otherwise there would be no use appealing once a writ of execution is issued and satisfied. Here, the RTC was allegedly found to have committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, so an issue of jurisdiction existed. The third submission was therefore without merit.

• Pro Forma Motion for Reconsideration — A motion for reconsideration is not pro forma merely because it reiterates issues already raised and passed upon; it is pro forma when, among other instances, it is a second motion for reconsideration, fails to specify findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by evidence, fails to substantiate alleged errors, merely alleges that the decision is contrary to law, or the adverse party was not notified. In this case, respondents' motion specified the findings it challenged and raised FACOMA's legal capacity to sue, which was not discussed in the RTC Decision; hence it was not pro forma and tolled the appeal period.
• Moot and Academic — A case or issue becomes moot and academic only when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by reason of supervening events, such that adjudication would have no practical value. Execution of a lower court's judgment is not such a supervening event because Rule 39, Section 5 allows restitution or reparation if the executed judgment is reversed or annulled, and an issue of jurisdiction prevents mootness. Applied: the RTC's grant of execution did not moot the certiorari petition.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence. Applied: the RTC's denial of the Notice of Appeal on the mistaken ground that the Motion for Reconsideration was pro forma constituted grave abuse of discretion.
• Factual Findings of the CA — The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; when supported by substantial evidence, the CA's factual findings are conclusive and binding and are not reviewable. Applied: the CA's finding that the Certiorari Petition assailed the April 4, 2011 Resolution was upheld.

• "The mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the court does not make a motion pro forma otherwise, the movant's remedy would not be a reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some other remedy." — This passage states the ratio for rejecting the RTC's pro forma characterization of respondents' motion for reconsideration.
• "A case or issue is considered moot and academic only when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use." — This passage defines mootness and supports the holding that execution did not moot the certiorari petition.
• "Rule 39, Section 5 of the Rules of Court states that where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances." — This passage supplies the procedural basis for holding that an executed judgment may still be reversed and restitution ordered, so the appeal retained practical value.
• "Well-settled is the rule that the Court is not a trier of facts. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court." — This passage states the standard of review that led the Supreme Court to defer to the CA's factual finding on what the certiorari petition assailed.

• Coquilla vs. Commission on Elections, 434 Phil. 861 (2002) — Cited for the rule that mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of issues already raised and passed upon does not make it pro forma, and for the instances when a motion is considered pro forma.
• Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Uy, 544 Phil. 308, 329 (2007) — Cited, together with Security Bank, for the holding that a motion for reconsideration is not pro forma just because it reiterates arguments earlier passed upon and rejected by the appellate court.
• Security Bank and Trust Company, Inc. vs. Cuenca, 396 Phil. 108 (2000) — Cited in Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Uy for the same rule on pro forma motions for reconsideration.
• Silverio vs. Court of Appeals, 225 Phil. 459 (1986) — Cited for the rule that execution does not bar the continuance of the appeal on the merits because restitution may be ordered if the executed judgment is reversed.
• Regulus Development, Inc. vs. Dela Cruz, 779 Phil. 75 (2016) — Cited for the rule that an issue on jurisdiction prevents a petition from becoming moot and academic despite execution of the lower court's judgment.
• Carpio vs. Court of Appeals, 705 Phil. 153 (2013) — Cited for the rule that execution of a lower court's judgment cannot automatically moot the issues in the appealed case; the possibility of reversal and restitution remains.
• Ontimare, Jr. vs. Elep, 515 Phil. 237, 245 (2006) — Cited for the rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and that the CA's factual findings supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding.
• Spouses Marquez vs. Spouses Alindog, 725 Phil. 237, 251 (2014) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion as a patent violation of the Constitution, law, or existing jurisprudence.
• Tagolino vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 706 Phil. 534 (2013) — Cited in Spouses Marquez for the same definition of grave abuse of discretion.

• Rule 39, Section 5, Rules of Court — Provides that where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant. Applied to hold that execution of the RTC judgment did not moot the certiorari petition.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the Petition for Certiorari filed by respondents Heirs of Cabotaje to assail the RTC's April 4, 2011 Resolution denying their Notice of Appeal. The CA and Supreme Court treated it as the proper remedy.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by FACOMA before the Supreme Court. The petition was denied.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concurred. J. Reyes, Jr., J., was on wellness leave.