FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213843. November 19, 2014.]
HEIRS OF JOSE ISRAEL, REPRESENTED BY ROSARIO ISRAEL, MACARIO ISRAEL, AND MICHAEL ISRAEL, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF REV. FR. JAIME ISRAEL, HEIRS OF ATTY. DOMINGO ISRAEL, FE ISRAEL BARIAS, HEIRS OF LIGAYA ISRAEL ORROS, ZENAIDA SORIANO, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 19, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213843 (Heirs of Jose Israel, represented by Rosario Israel, Macario Israel, and Michael Israel v. Heirs of Rev. Fr. Jaime Israel, Heirs of Atty. Domingo Israel, Fe Israel Barias, Heirs of Ligaya Israel Orros, Zenaida Soriano, et al.). The petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a careful perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the December 6, 2013 Decision 1 and July 30, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 121339 for failure of the Heirs of Jose Israel, represented by Rosario Israel, Macario Israel, and Michael Israel (petitioners-heirs) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the resumption of the proceedings in Civil Case No. U-7393.
As aptly pointed out by the CA, before the trial court set the partition for pre-trial, it had fixed a period for the filing of the proper petition for probate of Juan Israel's will. In its Order 3 dated February 8, 2011, the trial court directed the party that has possession of the will to file the necessary petition within thirty (30) days from notice, otherwise, it shall resume hearing the case. The prescribed periods for the performance of certain acts must be followed with fealty as they are designed primarily to speed up the final disposition of the case. Such periods are indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. Its observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of the parties. 4 To rule otherwise would be to allow petitioners to unjustly deprive respondents of the rightful enjoyment of their inheritance. ECcaDT
The Cash Collection and Disbursement Division is hereby DIRECTED to RETURN to the petitioners the excess amount of P470.00 paid for filing fees under O.R. No. 0100274-SC-EP dated September 4, 2014.
SO ORDERED."BERSAMIN, J., on official travel; VELASCO, JR., J., designated acting member per S.O. No. 1870 dated November 4, 2014.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 30-39. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Agnes Reyes-Carpio, concurring.
2. Id. at 196-198.
3. Id. at 179-182. Penned by Judge Tita S. Obinario.
4. See LTS Philippines Corporation v. Maliwat, 489 Phil. 230, 234 (2005).