SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220232. November 20, 2017.]
RURAL BANK OF CABATUAN [ILOILO], INC., petitioner,vs. HEIRS OF ROSARIO PROVIDO AND SPOUSES CLARO PROVIDO, JR. AND ELNORA PROVIDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 November 2017which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 220232 (Rural Bank of Cabatuan [Iloilo], Inc. v. Heirs of Rosario Provido and Spouses Claro Provido, Jr. and Elnora Provido)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 21, 2015 1 and July 24, 2015 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08537 for failure of petitioner Rural Bank of Cabatuan (Iloilo), Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing its petition for review for having been filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner did not proffer a justifiable reason in failing to file its petition for review within the extended period granted by the CA. It is settled that "the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law." 3 Further, "[t]o merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantial justice," 4 which was not done in this case.
In any event, the court a quo correctly conducted a preliminary hearing to determine the presence of a tenancy relationship and only dismissed the ejectment case when it became apparent that such relationship existed. It is settled that "a court does not lose jurisdiction over an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. The court continues to have the authority to hear and evaluate the evidence, precisely to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, and, if, after hearing, tenancy is shown to exist, it shall dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction," 5 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, JR., J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 26-29. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring.
2.Id. at 30-32.
3.Manila Mining Corporation v. Amor, 758 Phil. 268, 277 (2015), citing Colby Construction and Management Corp. and/or Lo v. NLRC, 564 Phil. 145, 154 (2007).
4.De Leon v. Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation, 734 Phil. 652, 663 (2014), citing Building Care Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation Agency v. Macaraeg, 700 Phil. 749 (2012).
5.Ofilada v. Spouses Andal, 752 Phil. 27, 44 (2015), citing Cano v. Spouses Jumawan, 517 Phil. 123, 129-130.