FIRST DIVISION
HEIRS
OF JOSE ESPLANA, namely: G.R.
No. 155758
YOLANDA BOTIN
VDA. DE
ESPLANA, TERESA
B. ESPLANA,
LIZA B.
ESPLANA, SHIRLEY B.
ESPLANA,
JACK B.
ESPLANA, and LINA B.
ESPLANA,
Petitioners,
Present:
-
versus - CARPIO, Acting Chairperson,
AZCUNA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and
BRION, JJ.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and
HEIRS OF PEDRO
DE
represented
by JAIME DE LIMA,
Respondents.
Promulgated:
X ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari
alleging that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolutions in
CA-G.R. SP No. 70106 dated
The
facts are as follows:
On
The MTC tried and decided the case as
an action for forcible entry. On P10,000 and the costs of the suit.
On appeal, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pursuant to the RTC Order, the MTC
tried the case anew to resolve who between the contending parties was the real
owner of the property. Defendant Pedro
de Lima died and was substituted by his son, Jaime de Lima.
The parcels of
land under litigation are irrigated ricelands with an aggregate area of 6,152
square meters situated in Barangay Sagrada, Baao, Camarines
Plaintiff Jose
Esplana contended that he was the owner of the subject property by virtue of
the Deed of Absolute Sale executed in his favor by his father, Victor Esplana,
in 1978. While defendant Pedro de Lima claimed
that he was the owner of the subject property having purchased the same from
the rightful owners, Mercedes, Crisanta and Regina, all surnamed Esplana
(Esplana sisters), by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale notarized by Atty.
Paulo Briones on
In a Decision
dated
WHEREFORE, for failure of the plaintiff to establish a valid
cause of action, the complaint is, as it is, hereby dismissed. Plaintiff’s exhibit “A” being a spurious
and/or falsified document, the same is declared null and void ab initio;
consequently, all deeds or transactions executed by the plaintiff subsequent to
its execution covering or affecting the land bought by the defendant from the
Esplana sisters is/are likewise declared null and void and of no legal effect
whatsoever. Particularly, the tax
declaration/s generated by the Assessor’s Office in the name of the plaintiff
by virtue or pursuant to exhibit “A” is/are declared without legal basis and
are hereby ordered cancelled also.
As regards defendant’s counter-claim, the plaintiff is
directed to pay the defendant, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in
the amount of P20,000.00 and to pay the costs of suit.
Defendant’s title to the land in question is quieted and for
lack of legal and factual basis, the Third-Party Complaint is, as it is hereby
dismissed.[1]
Jose Esplana
appealed the MTC decision to the RTC.
A certification from the Office of the Civil
Registrar shows that Jose Esplana died on
In a Decision dated
Jose Esplana’s
counsel received a copy of the RTC decision on
On
On
Petitioners’ counsel received a copy
of the Court of Appeals’ Resolution on
In a Resolution promulgated on
Petitioners’ counsel received a copy
of the Resolution on
The Court of
Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution
promulgated on
Hence, this
petition.
The issue is
whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolutions
promulgated on
Petitioners,
the heirs of Jose Esplana, contend that they could have filed the petition for
review before the deadline (
Petitioners
also submit that the 15-day extension to file a petition for review under Sec.
1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is not a strict and rigid rule for it allows a
further extension of 15 days for the most compelling reason, which in this case
is the death of the original party, Jose Esplana; the observance of his wake;
and the indecision of his heirs to pursue the case on appeal.
Petitioners
pray that the Court annul and set aside the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions dated
The petition
is without merit.
Sec. 1, Rule
42 of the Rules of Court provides for the manner an appeal by petition for
review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals is taken:
SECTION
1. How appeal taken; time for filing.—A party desiring to appeal from a
decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals,
paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and
other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the
Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the
denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due
time after judgment. Upon proper
motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful
fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period,
the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition
for review. No further extension shall
be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed
fifteen (15) days.
Sec. 1, Rule
42 of the Rules of Court is very clear that petitioners are allowed an
extension of only 15 days to file a petition for review with the Court of
Appeals. Although a further extension
not to exceed 15 days may be granted for the most compelling reason,[4]
the grounds stated by petitioners do not
entitle them to a further
extension.
Petitioners’
motion for extension was grounded on the untimely death of the original party,
Jose Esplana, their counsel’s day to day court appearance and the voluminous
paper work in said counsel’s office. The
stated grounds for the motion for extension warranted the grant of a 15-day
extension by the Court of Appeals that would end on
Petitioners
filed their petition for review on
Petitioners
submit in their Reply that they are entitled to a further extension of 15 days
under Sec. 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court for these compelling reasons: the
death of the original party, Jose Esplana; the observance of his wake; and
their (petitioners) indecision to pursue the case on appeal.
The Court is
not persuaded.
The death
certificate[5]
presented by petitioners before the Court of Appeals showed that Jose Esplana
died on
The Court
holds that petitioners’ indecision to appeal their case before the Court of
Appeals is clearly not a compelling reason to grant them a further extension
of 15 days to file their petition for
review.
Further,
before the Court of Appeals may grant the 15-day extension to file a petition
for review, Sec. 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court requires the payment of the full
amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit of the necessary
amount for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period. These, petitioners failed to do.
In the Resolution
of October 1, 2002 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, the Court
of Appeals stated that petitioners did not only fail to file their petition for
review within the 15-day extension granted, but they also failed to pay the
full amount of the docket and other legal fees within the reglementary period,
that is, on or before March 8, 2002, the last day for petitioners to file their
petition.
Motions for extension are not granted as a
matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court.[6] Lawyers are expected to be knowledgeable of
the rule on the grant of such motion. The requirements for perfecting an appeal
within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed
as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and
for orderly discharge of judicial business.[7]
In fine, the
Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the
Resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70106 dated
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice Associate
Justice
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Acting
Chairperson, First Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Acting Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
* Also referred to as Ferrera in the
MTC Decision dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 58-59.
[2] Annex “E,” rollo, p. 72.
[3] Annex “B,” rollo, p. 66.
[4] Bernardo v. People, G.R.
No. 166980,
[5] Annex “A,” CA rollo, p. 92.
[6] Supra, note 2.
[7] Videogram Regulatory Board v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106564,