Rule 3 Section 21 G.R. No. 208213

[G.R. No.
208213 August 08, 2018]

Ayala Land, petitioner
vs.
Heirs of Lucas Lactao, respondent
Facts: Respondent heirs filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court
for quieting of title for annulment and cancelation of titles with the
alternative remedy of conveyance of possession and ownership involving a
parcel of land of which, allegedly, they were driven away by Ayala Land.
Respondents paid the docket fee required in the amount of P 6,282.80 and
executed an Affidavit of Undertaking that in the event of deficiency in the
payment of filing fees, they would settle the same through a first lien on any
monetary judgment rendered in their favor. The docket fee was reassessed
by the court upon order of the Court of Appeals to reassess and for the
Respondents to pay. The deficiency amounts to P 39,172, 020.00.
Respondents filed an Omnibus Motion asking the RTC to set a hearing to

determine the factual basis for the computation of the additional filing fees
and to rule that the additional filing fee would constitute a lien on judgment.
They also filed a Motion to declare them as pauer litigants. They averred
that they could not pay the said amount except by having the amount
constitute as a lien on the judgment since they were already pauper litigants,
which the Regional Trial Court granted.
Petitioner, Ayala Land, however, contends that Respondents were ordered

by the Court of Appeals to pay the deficiency and that this order already
attained finality, thus, they are required to pay the reassessed docket fee.
Issue: Whether or not respondents may claim for indigency after Final Order
of the Court of Appeals to pay
Ruling: Yes. Rule 3 Section 21 of the Rules of Court provides that:
Section 21. Indigent party. - A party may be authorized to litigate his action,
claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and
hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of dock et and

other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court
may order to be furnished him. The amount of the dock et and other lawful
fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any
judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court
otherwise provides.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before
judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after
hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with
sufficient income or property, the proper dock et and other lawful fees shall
be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made
within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the payment
thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
The Court held that there is no dispute that the Order of the Court of Appeals
had become final and executory ordering the Clerk of Court of the RTC to
reassess and determine the correct amount of docket fees and the RTC to
direct respondents to pay the same. This directive, however, does not
preclude a motion for exemption from paying the additional fees by reason
of indigence.
Access to justice by the impoverished is held sacrosanct under Article III,

Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. The idea of paying docket fees at
P39,172,020.00, as alleged by respondents, or P62,903,240.00, as computed
by petitioner, is enough to give anyone pause. To an indigent, it is scarcely
within the realm of possibility. The Court, thus, finds it more in keeping
with the free access clause under the Bill of Rights to accord respondents a
chance to establish their indigence.
Citing Pilipinas Shell, the plaintiff was required to pay additional docket
fees. The Court directed that the proceedings before the trial court resume
upon payment of all lawful fees or upon exemption from payment if the
party is entitled to litigate as pauper. The Court also held that indigence was
not belatedly raised by respondents since an application to litigate as an
indigent party may be made when additional filing fees are imposed
subsequent to the filing of the complaint and even after the issue of docket
fees had undergone review. Thus, the Court ordered the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City to resolve with dispatch the issue of whether respondents
qualify as indigent litigants.

Rule 3 Section 21 G.R. No. 208213

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 3 Section 21 G.R. No. 208213

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 3 Section 21 G.R. No. 208213

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No.

208213 August 08, 2018]

Respondents filed an Omnibus Motion asking the RTC to set a hearing to

Petitioner, Ayala Land, however, contends that Respondents were ordered

Ruling: Yes. Rule 3 Section 21 of the Rules of Court provides that:

Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of dock et and

Access to justice by the impoverished is held sacrosanct under Article III,

You might also like