FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219559. October 14, 2015.]
MAGNO GARCIA AND CIPRIANO GARCIA, petitioners, vs. CARMELITA VILLAROSA-EMAS, AS REPRESENTED BY ANITA J. VDA. DE VILLAROSA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 14, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219559 (Magno Garcia and Cipriano Garcia v. Carmelita Villarosa-Emas, as represented by Anita J. Vda. De Villarosa). — The petitioners' motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS outright the instant petition for review on certiorari for having been filed out of time, rendering the October 30, 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128163 final and unappealable, and beyond the Court's power to review.
Records reveal that petitioners Magno Garcia and Cipriano Garcia (petitioners) received a copy of the May 25, 2015 CA Resolution 2 denying their motion for reconsideration of the October 30, 2014 CA Decision on June 24, 2015, 3 hence, they had fifteen (15) days from its receipt or until July 9, 2015 within which to file the instant petition. While petitioners sought an extension 4 of fifteen (15) days from July 9, 2015 or until July 24, 2015 to file the petition for review on certiorari, even if granted, the petition was still belatedly posted on July 27, 2015, 5 contrary to the claim of timely filing by affiant Sarah Mei M. Iglesia. 6
Moreover, the petition lacks the following: (a) proof of service of the motion for extension of time to file petition for review on the CA and the adverse party pursuant to Section 5 (d), Rule 56 and Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court (Rules); (b) explanation why service of the petition on the CA and the adverse party was not done personally as required by Section 11, Rule 13, in relation to Section 3, Rule 45 and Section 5 (d), Rule 56 of the Rules; (c) deposit for costs and legal research fee as required under Section 3, Rule 45 and Section 5 (c), Rule 56 of the Rules; (d) competent evidence of identity considering that the affiants in the verification and certification on non-forum shopping and in the affidavit of service were not shown to have exhibited any current identification document issued by an official agency, conformably with Sections 6 and 12 (a), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by the February 19, 2008 En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC; and (e) verified declaration as required under A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC (Re: Proposed Rules on E-filing) and 11-9-4-SC (Re: Efficient Use of Paper Rule) in relation to Section 5 (e), Rule 56 of the Rules.
Besides, no reversible error can be imputed on the CA in upholding the May 8, 2012 Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 17282 based on its finding that petitioners' failure to pay lease rentals to respondent Carmelita Villarosa-Emas (respondent) was willful and deliberate, warranting their ejectment from the subject land. The term "willful" means "voluntary and intentional, but not necessarily malicious," while the term "deliberate" means that the act or omission is "intentional," "premeditated" or "fully considered" 7 — qualities that the DARAB and the CA correctly found respondent to have successfully established in relation to petitioners' default, considering the latter's admission that arrearages have accumulated over a considerable length of time. Case law holds that the agricultural lessor has both the right and expectation to promptly receive agricultural leasehold rentals, such that the failure of the agricultural lessee to timely comply with his rent obligations — unless caused by a fortuitous event, or reprieved by a finding that the non-payment was not willful and deliberate — entitles the former to recover his property and eject the latter. 8
SO ORDERED." TAIaHE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 118-129. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
2. Id. at 135-137.
3. Id. at 3.
4. Id. at 3-4.
5. See id. at 12.
6. See Affidavit of Service dated July 24, 2015; id. at 27.
7. Nieves v. Duldulao, G.R. No. 190276, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 437, 449; citations omitted.
8. See id. at 452-453.