Remedial Law Review

Appeals/Original Actions in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

Spouses Jesus Dyoco and Joela Dyoco vs. Court of Appeals (2013)
Facts:
1. Spouses Dyoco filed a complaint for ejectment, cancellation of certificates of
land transfer, damages and injunction against Nelly Siapno-Sanchez and
Inocencio Berma in the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB.
2. Spouses Dyoco allege that they are the absolute and registered owners of the
subject land. Sanchez et al. took advantage of their liberality, entered the
property and successfully registered themselves as tenants, and occupied
and cultivated the property to the prejudice of the spouses.
3. The Provincial Adjudicator found Sanchez et al. not worthy to become
beneficiaries. He ordered a writ of execution ordering their ejectment.
Sanchez et. al filed a Motion to Quash or Suspend the writ of execution. They
explained that they are already the owners of their respective portions of the
property by virtue of the Operation Land Transfer under PD No. 27. According
to Sanchez et.al, the spouses executed deed of transfer in their favor which
resulted to the issuance to them of emancipation patents.
4. Sanchez et al also further asserted that the decision ordering their ejectment
is not yet executory as they have filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 1996.
The spouses argued that both the motion to quash and the notice of appeal
were filed beyond the prescribed period.
5. The DARAB found that both Sanchez and Berma are beneficiaries of PD No.
27 and therefore, owners of their respective portions of the property.
6. Spouses Dyoco received a copy of the DARAB decision on April 3, 2000 and
had until April 18, 2000 to file an appeal. They filed a motion in the CA
praying for an extension of 30 days within which to file their petition. The CA
granted them an extension of 15 days with warning that no further extension
will be granted. Thus, the spouses had until May 3, 2000 to file their petition.
7. Spouses Dyoco filed their petition via registered mail on May 8, 2000. CA
dismissed their petition and also the MR which the spouses filed thereafter.
8. Spouses Dyoco filed a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court invoking
liberality in the construction of the Rules of Court. They claim that the
petition was filed after the period granted by the CA because on April 10,
2000, they secured the services of a new counsel who still had to study
voluminous records. They also claim that the petition they filed with the CA
is supported by compelling reasons.
Issue: W/N the Court of Appeals should have given due course to the petition of the
spouses although it was filed 5 days after the lapse of the extended period (NO)
Held/Ratio:
The CA granted the spouses a 15-day extension within which to filed their
intended petition. The action of the CA was in accordance with Section 4, Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court. Thus, as the original deadline of the spouses was April 18, 2000,

they had until May 3, 2000 to file their intended petition. The spouses however filed
their petition on May 8, 2000. They themselves even admit that they filed their
petition late. It is therefore clear that the CA simply applied the rules, while the
spouses concededly failed to observe the very same rules.
The dismissal of the petition by the Court of Appeals was discretion duly
exercised and not misused or abused.
The spouses anchor their petition on an invocation of the liberal construction
rule. However, this is not a license to disregard procedural requirements. The
spouses caused their own predicament when they decided to change their counsel
just a week before the period of expiration of the period to appeal before the CA.
Furthermore, the spouses failed to show any persuasive reason why they
should be exempted from strictly abiding by the rules when they filed their petition
for review in the CA beyond the prescribed period. They again disregarded the rules
in various ways absent any compelling reason why they filed this petition.