Rule 51 Case Digest

Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 168065/G.R. No.
168070 September 6, 2017
The appellate court is accorded a broad discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of
errors and to consider errors not assigned. It is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they
are not assigned as errors in the appeal. Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals may consider grounds other
than those touched upon in the decision of the trial court and uphold the same on the basis of such other
grounds, the Court of Appeals may, with no less authority, reverse the decision of the trial court on the
basis of grounds other than those raised as errors on appeal. In this case, there is no doubt that the
application for registration of title hinges upon the determination of whether the subject lands are
alienable and disposable. Further, this is consistent with the appellate court's authority to review the
totality of the controversy brought on appeal.
FACTS:
Geronimo, Josefino, and Rodrigo, all surnamed Saclolo (the Saclolos) filed before the then Court of First
Instance, now Regional Trial Court, Naic, Cavite, a joint application for registration of title over three (3)
parcels of land (subject lands), with a total area of 3,752,142 square meters (375.2 hectares) and located at
Sitio Sinalam, Bario Sapang, Ternate, Cavite.6 The Saclolos averred that they had acquired title to the
subject lands through purchase and that together with their predecessors-in-interest, they had been in
actual and exclusive possession, occupation, and cultivation of the subject lands since time immemorial.7
The government, thru the Director of Lands, Abdon Riego de Dios, and Angelina Samson filed
oppositions to the application.8 The Director of Lands argued that the subject lands are not alienable and
disposable because: they are located within the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation, segregated from the
public domain by Proclamation No. 307, dated November 20, 1967; that by virtue of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6236, the right to judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48 of the Public Land Law,
with respect to lands having an area of more than 144 hectares, has expired; that the Saclolos had not
acquired title over the subject lands through any recognized mode of acquisition of title; that the Saclolos
and their predecessors-in-interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of the subject lands for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the
application; and that PSU 68, 69, and 70, the plans which cover the subject lands, have not been verified
by the Bureau of Lands as required by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 239.9
On 27 December 1993, Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez (Enriquez) filed a motion for intervention alleging that
the Saclolos had sold to her all their interests and rights over the subject lands on 19 September 1976.
RTC ruled that the subject lands are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain because
Proclamation No. 307 itself stressed that the segregation of the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation was
subject to private rights. CA reversed.
ISSUE :
Whether the appellate court may resolve issues which are not raised as errors on appeal (YES)
RULING:
As a general rule, only matters assigned as errors in the appeal may be resolved. Section 8, Rule 51 of the
Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 8. Questions that May Be Decided. — No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the
subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered
unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and
properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.
The exceptions to this rule have been enumerated in Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals:21
The appellate court is accorded a broad discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of
errors and to consider errors not assigned. It is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they
are not assigned as errors in the appeal. Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals may consider grounds other
than those touched upon in the decision of the trial court and uphold the same on the basis of such other
grounds, the Court of Appeals may, with no less authority, reverse the decision of the trial court on the
basis of grounds other than those raised as errors on appeal. We have applied this rule, as a matter of
exception, in the following instances:
(1) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation
of law;
(3) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just
decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing
piecemeal justice;
(4) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of
record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower
court ignored;
(5) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and
(6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly
assigned, is dependent.22 (citations omitted) In this case, there is no doubt that the application for
registration of title hinges upon the determination of whether the subject lands are alienable and
disposable. Further, this is consistent with the appellate court's authority to review the totality of the
controversy brought on appeal.

Rule 51 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 51 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 51 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 168065/G.R. No.

168070 September 6, 2017

You might also like