FIRST DIVISION
[UDK-16468. August 20, 2019.]
RICARDO GARCIA AND ALMIRANTE ESPARTERO, petitioners, vs.THE HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO DEL PRADO, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS WIFE ROSALIE DEL PRADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 20, 2019which reads as follows:
"UDK-16468 (Ricardo Garcia and Almirante Espartero v. The Heirs of Leopoldo Del Prado, represented herein by his wife Rosalie Del Prado)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the November 15, 2018 Decision 2 and the May 24, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151515 for failure of petitioners Ricardo Garcia and Almirante Espartero (petitioners) to promptly pay the full amount of docket fees, other legal fees, and the deposit for costs, as directed, 4 and for their failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that the court a quo properly exercised jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case filed by respondents the Heirs of Leopoldo Del Prado, represented herein by his wife Rosalie Del Prado (respondents).
Under Sections 2 5 and 3, 6 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), full payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs is required before the expiration of the reglementary period to file the petition for review on certiorari, and failure to do so renders the petition dismissible, pursuant to Section 5 (c), 7 Rule 56 of the Rules. Indeed, the Court has consistently held that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is jurisdictional and necessary for the perfection of an appeal, and non-compliance therewith shall constitute sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. 8
In any event, the CA correctly held that the court a quo properly exercised jurisdiction over respondents' unlawful detainer complaint, where the issue involved is only physical possession over real property, and not an agrarian dispute in view of the March 9, 2015 Resolution 9 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, finding no tenancy relationship between the parties. Under prevailing jurisprudence, regular courts have jurisdiction over possessory actions involving public or private agricultural lands in order to determine the issue of physical possession. 10
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J.andGesmundo, J.,both onofficial leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-21.
2.Id. at 52-64. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3.Id. at 37-38.
4. See Notice of Resolution dated July 8, 2019, which reads: "The Court resolves to: x x x 2. REQUIRE petitioners to FULLY COMPLY with the Rules by paying the amount of P4,530.00 for docket/legal fees and/or sheriff's trust fund pursuant to Section 3, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (c), Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, and A.M. No. 17-12-09-SC, within five (5) days from notice."; id. at 10-11.
5. Section 2. Time for filing; extension. — The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition.
6. 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. Proof of service of a copy thereof on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition.
7. Section 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other lawful fees or to make a deposit for costs.
8. See Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia, 562 Phil. 246, 253 (2007).
9.Rollo, pp. 123-128. Penned by Provincial Adjudicator Vicente Aselo S. Sicat III.
10. See Spouses Villacastin v. Pelaez, 577 Phil. 73, 79 (2008), citing David v. Cordova, 502 Phil. 626, 646 (2005).