ABELARDO APORTADERA, SR., ABELARDO APORTADERA, JR., AND RUBEN C. BATOY, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING…

Aportadera versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Abelardo Aportadera, Senior, Abelardo Aportadera, Junior, and Ruben Batoy against the Court of Appeals and the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao City, Branch One, together with Jose Joaquin as judicial administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Helen Corrales-Joaquin. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to undo a judgment that had already become final and executory, solely because their counsel never claimed from the Post Office the registered mail that carried the appellate court's resolution denying due course to their petition. The case matters because it fixes the rule on when service by registered mail is complete, and it teaches that a litigant cannot reopen a final judgment by blaming his own counsel's failure to collect his mail.

Procedural History

The petitioners first went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Davao City over a civil case for quieting of title, and raising lack of cause of action, estoppel, prescription, and lack of legal personality to sue. Earlier, the trial court had denied their motion to dismiss and two motions for reconsideration, deferring the resolution of the grounds until trial. On October 10, 1974, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying due course to the petition. A copy was sent to the petitioners' counsel by registered mail, but it was returned unclaimed. The resolution became final and executory on November 26, 1974, and an entry of judgment was issued. On April 16, 1975, the petitioners received a copy of the entry of judgment by ordinary mail. On April 21, 1975, they filed a motion to vacate the entry of judgment, which the Court of Appeals denied on May 21, 1975, and it likewise denied their motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition.

Facts

Jose Joaquin held a free patent and the corresponding certificate of title over a parcel of land in Davao City. A few months later, Abelardo Aportadera, Junior, obtained his own free patent and certificate of title over a parcel that, according to Joaquin, overlapped a portion of his land. Joaquin then filed a civil case in the Court of First Instance of Davao City for quieting of title and reconveyance of a portion of the land covered by Aportadera's title, alleging that it had been included in Aportadera's title by fraud.

Aportadera moved to dismiss on various grounds. The trial judge denied the motion and maintained the denial over two motions for reconsideration, holding that the grounds did not appear indubitable and deferring their determination until trial. Aportadera and his co-petitioners then went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari and prohibition.

The Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition. It held that once the free patents and titles were issued, the lands had ceased to be public, so conflicts between title holders belonged to the trial court and not to the Director of Lands, and that the remedy of reconveyance on the ground of fraud had been filed within the prescriptive period. A copy of the resolution was mailed by registered mail to the petitioners' counsel at a post office box on Anda Street, Davao City. The mail was returned unclaimed despite notices. The petitioners later claimed their counsel never received the resolution, that the post office box was closed, and that the address used was not their counsel's address of record. The Court of Appeals found the address correct and denied the motion to vacate the entry of judgment.

Issues

• Whether or not service of the resolution denying due course by registered mail was complete despite the addressee's failure to claim the mail from the Post Office.
• Whether or not the resolution of the Court of Appeals had become final and executory, barring the motion to vacate the entry of judgment.
• Whether or not the factual findings of the Court of Appeals on the mailing and the address of counsel may be reversed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8 of Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

If the addressee of a registered mail fails to claim it from the Post Office within five days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster, service becomes effective upon the expiration of that five-day period.

This provision is the heart of the case, because it fixes the moment service is deemed complete and therefore starts the running of the period to move for reconsideration.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that service was complete. The registered mail carrying the October 10, 1974 resolution was returned unclaimed despite two notices sent to the petitioners' counsel, and the five-day period to claim the mail had long expired. Under Section 8 of Rule 13, service became effective upon the expiration of that five-day period. The Court quoted the appellate court's finding that the address was correct, taken not only from the petitions but from counsel's own letter of transmittal and letter of inquiry, and that the post office box ensured delivery of the registry notices. On the conflicting claims, the Court ruled that as between the denial of counsel and the postmaster's certification, the postmaster's claim should prevail, because the postmaster has the official duty to send notices of registered mail and official duty is presumed to have been regularly performed.

On the second issue, the Court held that after the five-day period, the period to file a motion for reconsideration began to run. Since no motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period, the resolution became final and executory, and the Court of Appeals had no recourse but to issue the entry of judgment. On the third issue, the Court refused to disturb the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. It found the claim that the post office box was closed to be an afterthought, since that ground was raised only in this petition and not in the motion for reconsideration below, and it gave no evidentiary value to the affidavits of counsel's secretaries. The Court also found no considerations of substantial justice warranting the setting aside of the rules.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, service by registered mail is complete upon the expiration of five days from the first notice of the postmaster if the addressee fails to claim the mail, and this is the rule quoted above from Section 8 of Rule 13. Second, once service is complete, the period to move for reconsideration runs, and failure to file within that period makes the judgment final and executory. Third, the postmaster's certification that notices were sent prevails over counsel's bare denial, because official duty is presumed to have been regularly performed. Fourth, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Supreme Court absent a clear showing of error, and a ground raised for the first time on appeal is an afterthought that deserves no weight.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the questioned resolutions of the Court of Appeals.

Remember This

Memorize this line: if the addressee of a registered mail fails to claim it within five days from the first notice of the postmaster, service is complete upon the expiration of that period. Examiners use this case to test the rules on service of judgments by registered mail, the finality of judgments, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the postmaster.