ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[UDK-17166. January 3, 2022.]
DALLAS ENERGY AND PETROLEUM CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. EDWIN AUZANO, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 January 2022which reads as follows:
"UDK-17166 (Dallas Energy and Petroleum Corporation v. Edwin Auzano, et al.). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition 1 for lack of payment of the required docket and other lawful fees due to stale postal money orders (PMOs) as provided under Section 3, 2 in relation to Section 5, 3 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is basic that appeal is not a matter of right and the party who seeks to avail of the remedy of appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules; otherwise, the appeal is lost. 4
In any event, the Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision 5 dated September 16, 2020 and Resolution 6 May 27, 2021 in CA-G.R. SP No. 09093-MIN, did not commit any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of the unlawful detainer complaint filed by petitioner Dallas Energy & Petroleum Corporation (petitioner) against respondents Edwin Auzano, et al. (respondents). As aptly found by the CA, none of the documentary evidence presented by petitioner established its allegation that respondents occupied the subject property by mere tolerance of its predecessor-in-interest, the Tesorero family. The acts of tolerance must be proved, for a bare allegation of tolerance will not suffice. 7 Moreover, an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property. Key jurisdictional facts constitutive of the particular ejectment case filed must be averred in the complaint and sufficiently proven. 8 As petitioner in this case opted to file an unlawful detainer case hinged upon mere tolerance, it had the correlative burden to allege as well as prove by preponderance of evidence all the jurisdictional facts required in such action, failing which, it could pursue other appropriate legal remedies granted to it by law. 9 Having failed to discharge this burden, petitioner's complaint for unlawful detainer was therefore correctly dismissed.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-60.
2. Section 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of petition. — Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition. x x x.
3. Section 5. Dismissal of denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
4. See Kumar v. People, G.R. No. 247661, June 15, 2020; see also Ang v. CA, G.R. No. 238203, September 3, 2020.
5.Rollo, pp. 430-447. Penned by Associate Justice Richard D. Mordeno with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan, concurring.
6.Id. at 486-491.
7. See Nabo v. Buenviaje, G.R. No. 224906, October 7, 2020.
8.Javelosa v. Tapus, 835 Phil. 576, 593 (2018) cited in Nabo v. Buenviaje, supra.
9.Javelosa v. Tapus, supra.