SECOND DIVISION
[UDK-17061. November 22, 2021.]
GUILLERMA MENDOZA-SIMPAO, FOR HERSELF, AND FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE OTHER HEIRS OF JOSE BUMA-AT, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF EDWIN U. RAMIREZ, NAMELY, ESMERALDA U. RAMIREZ AND JESSICA RAMIREZ, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE CITY OF TAGBILARAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 November 2021which reads as follows:
"UDK-17061 (Guillerma Mendoza-Simpao, for herself, and for and in behalf of the other Heirs of Jose Buma-at v. Heirs of Edwin U. Ramirez, namely, Esmeralda U. Ramirez and Jessica Ramirez, and the Register of Deeds of the City of Tagbilaran). — The Court resolves to GRANT the motion of petitioner Guillerma Mendoza-Simpao, for herself, and for and in behalf of the other heirs of Jose Buma-at (petitioner) for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, 1 and to NOTE and GRANT the Notice of Appearance 2 of Atty. Cristifil D. Baluma as collaborating counsel for petitioner Edmar Thaddeus M. Simpao, praying that all Court processes be sent to him at 61 E. Butalid Street, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, and NOTE counsel's manifestation 3 of the death of Edwin M. Simpao, brother of petitioner, as per the attached copy of his death certificate. 4
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DISMISS the petition for lack of payment of the required docket and other lawful fees amounting to a total of P5,830.00 5 as provided under Section 3, 6 in relation to Section 5, 7 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. 8
In any event, the Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision 9 dated April 21, 2021 in CA-G.R. CV No. 05938, did not commit any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of petitioner's action for reconveyance of Lot No. 1504-D with an area of 3,542 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-37274 10 in the name of Edwin U. Ramirez (Ramirez) situated in Cogon, Tagbilaran City (subject property), for the following reasons: (a) petitioner's action for reconveyance had already prescribed as the same was filed only on November 29, 2009 or after the lapse of more than thirty-four (34) years reckoned from the issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 5 pursuant to Free Patent No. (VII-2) 6580 in favor of Natividad T. Ramirez (Natividad) on October 31, 1975; 11 and (b) Ramirez was an innocent purchaser for value absent any showing of knowledge or defect on Natividad's title, further bolstered by the fact that the Deed of Sale 12 on October 22, 1991 indicated that OCT No. 5 had no adverse claim annotated thereon and was duly acknowledged before a notary public. 13 It bears stressing that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court, and will generally not be reviewed on appeal absent any of the exceptions laid down by jurisprudence, 14 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (Hernando, J., on Official Leave).''
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appearance with Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari with Manifestation dated June 16, 2021; rollo, pp. 3-7.
2.Id.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 8.
5.Id. at 1, 2, and 16.
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. x x x
7. Sec. 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.
8. See Kumar v. People, G.R. No. 247661, June 15, 2020; see also Ang v. CA, G.R. No. 238203, September 3, 2020.
9.Rollo, pp. 37-49. Penned by Associate Justice Bautista G. Corpin, Jr. with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring.
10.Id. at 72.
11.Id. at 44.
12.Id. at 71.
13.Id. at 47-48.
14. See Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012).