FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212039. November 22, 2017.]
MARCELINA CAYABYAB AS SUBSTITUTED BY MANUEL CAYABYAB, petitioner,vs. SPOUSES EUGENIO DIAZ, JR. AND CONCEPCION VENGADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 22, 2017, which reads as follows: AcICHD
"G.R. No. 212039 (Marcelina Cayabyab as substituted by Manuel Cayabyab vs. Spouses Eugenio Diaz, Jr. and Concepcion Vengado)
For review are the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 30, 2014 1 and April 1, 2014 2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 132894, dismissing the case outright.
After perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure of petitioner Marcelina Cayabyab (Marcelina), as substituted by Manuel Cayabyab, to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed CA resolutions.
"[T]he allowance or denial of a motion for extension of time is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, moreover, lawyers cannot expect that their motions for extension or postponement will be granted as a matter of course." 3 The CA has sufficiently explained that it found no compelling reason to grant the same.
Furthermore, even if the extensions were indeed granted and the petition for review was given due course, the petition for review must still fail.
We note that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Central Office, in arriving at its conclusion that Marcelina is indeed the tenant of Spouses Eugenio Diaz, Jr. and Concepcion Vengado (respondents), conducted an ocular inspection, which negated the claims of Marcelina that it is not she but her son, Manuel Cayabyab, that is the tenant of the subject land. The ocular inspection report also clearly supports the conclusion of both the Provincial Adjudicator and the DARAB Central Office, that the subject land and the subject matter of the submitted memorandum of agreement are different. 4 "[T]he Court has consistently held that the findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, like the DARAB, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded respect." 5
The bank account with the Philippine Rural Banking Corporation also does not negate the fact that there is deliberate and willful refusal to pay lease rentals on the part of Marcelina. The bank account, as correctly noted by DARAB, was not in the name of the respondents, and was in fact, in the name of Marcelina's daughter-in-law, Remedios P. Cayabyab (Remedios). Remedios did not even execute an affidavit stating that she opened the said account for Marcelina or that it was opened for the sole purpose of consigning the lease rentals to be paid to the respondents. The mere existence of an account itself cannot exculpate Marcelina from her obligations under the agrarian laws. 6
WHEREFORE, this Court DENIES the petition. The Resolutions dated January 30, 2014 and April 1, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132894 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Francisco P. Acosta; rollo, pp. 164-165.
2.Id. at 173-176.
3.J. Tiosejo Investment Corp. v. Spouses Ang, 644 Phil. 601, 612-613 (2010).
4.Rollo, p. 118.
5.Heirs of Jose M. Cervantes v. Miranda, 641 Phil. 553, 561 (2010).
6.Rollo, pp. 119-120.