[G.R. No. 159861. July
19, 2004]
DE RAMIREZ vs.
CAMIWET
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated JUL 19 2004.
G.R. No. 159861 (Estela Ay-Ay
Vda. De Ramirez, etc., et al. vs. Carlos M. Camiwet, et al.)
This is to clarify the resolution of this Court dated January
21, 2004.
On September 26, 2003,
this Court received a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal by
Certiorari" against the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV
No. 65787 filed by petitioners. In a resolution dated October
20, 2003, this Court allowed petitioners a 30-day extension within
which to file their petition.
On November 25, 2003,
instead of filing a petition, petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation
claiming that private respondents' illegal acts of invasion and occupation of
the land owned by petitioners, subject of this case, have ceased to exist
thereby making the petition moot and academic. As a consequence of this
manifestation, this Court resolved on January
21, 2004 to consider the case Closed and Terminated.
Private respondents filed on March
15, 2004 a Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification praying that
this Court expressly declare that petitioners have failed to file a petition
and that the decision of the Court of Appeals has become final and executory.
In a resolution dated March 31, 2004, this Court required petitioners to
comment on the Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification. Said Comment was
filed on May 21, 2004, wherein petitioners expressed their opposition to
private respondents' motion.
It is clear that no petition has ever been filed before this
Court. Petitioners initially asked for an extension to file a petition.
However, despite the granting of the extension, no such petition was filed.
Instead, petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation alleging that the case was
moot and academic. This Court did not rule on the truth of the matters stated
in the Urgent Manifestation but only took it as a manifestation that
petitioners were not going to file a petition within the period given them,
which had in fact by then lapsed.
Since no petition was filed within the period allowed, this Court
resolved that this case was Closed and Terminated.
WHEREFORE, the
resolution of January 21, 2004
is hereby clarified as being based solely on the ground of the non-filing of
the petition within the period allowed.
Very truly
yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court