THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233238. October 4, 2017.]
MILTON P. CROSA AND LOLITA FE M. CROSA, petitioners,vs. CIRILO QUINTANA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 4, 2017, which reads as follows: SDAaTC
"G.R. No. 233238 (Milton P. Crosa and Lolita Fe M. Crosa vs. Cirilo Quintana). — Before Us is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the February 15, 2017 1 and June 28, 2017 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 10536. The challenged rulings dismissed the petition for review filed by petitioners spouses Milton P. Crosa and Lolita Fe M. Crosa questioning the December 1, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Abuyog Leyte, Branch 10, in Civil Case No. 731 entitled "Cirilo Quintana vs. Sps. Milton P. Crosa and Lolita Malasaga."
Factual Antecedents
On July 10, 2012, respondent Cirilo Quintana filed a complaint for recovery of possession and/or quieting of title before the 12th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Abuyog-Javier, Leyte against the petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 3762. Respondent alleged that Canuta Malquisto, his grandmother, owned a 9,241 sq.m. lot situated in Brgy. Picas Norte, Javier, Leyte and covered by Tax Declaration No. 4149. Upon the death of Canuta Malquisto on August 21, 1956, the ownership of her lot passed on to her four grandchildren, namely Canuta, Lucina, Arturo, and herein respondent, all surnamed Quintana. The heirs divided the lot equally amongst themselves, leaving the respondent with a 2,310 sq.m. lot as his share.
On June 8, 1988, respondent sold a portion of his lot to the petitioners for P5,000.00, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale of a Portion of Agricultural Land. Respondent continued to possess the remaining portion of his lot after the sale. Whenever his schedule permitted him to, since he was living in Brgy. Picas Bito, Abuyog, Leyte, which is 3 km from his lot in Picas Norte, respondent continued to harvest the fruits of the five coconut trees planted on his property and to gather firewood therefrom. Towards the end of the year 2002, however, respondent discovered that three of his five coconut trees had been cut. Upon inquiry, petitioners themselves admitted to cutting the coconut trees, but claimed to own the whole 2,310 sq.m. lot. Petitioners then warned the respondent not to set foot inside the property afterwards.
Consequently, respondent filed an action for recovery of possession and/or quieting of title before the Abuyog RTC, Branch 10, docketed as Civil Case No. 487. The RTC rendered a Decision on December 27, 2006 finding for the respondent. On appeal, however, the CA declared that the RTC had no jurisdiction to try the case since the assessed value of the property does not exceed P20,000.00.
Undaunted, respondent instituted another complaint for recovery of possession and/or quieting of title against the petitioners, this time with the MCTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 3762. Respondent claimed that the portion sold to the petitioners only covered such portion as would be enough to enable them to construct their house, which corresponds to the 74.42 sq. m. area of the lot on which their house is erected.
Petitioners disputed this allegation and insisted that respondent sold his entire property to them, not just a portion thereof. To bolster their claim, petitioners presented the following documentary evidence: 1) Sworn Statement of the True Current and Fair Market Value of Real Properties with Index No. 38-0785-0382 (Sworn Statement), 2) Tax Declaration No. 081902200082 covering the 2,310 sq.m. lot, both of which state that petitioner Milton Crosa is the administrator of the property, 3) Tax Receipt dated March 7, 2013, and 4) Certification dated November 12, 2012. Petitioners further claimed that they have been paying the real estate taxes for the subject lot since acquiring it from the respondent in 1988, and that their payments are up to date.
Ruling of the MCTC
On June 24, 2016, the MCTC 4 rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which states:
Wherefore, in light of the foregoing, the Court rules that preponderance of evidence is with the [respondent] who has proven his claims of ownership and possession. The portion sold to [petitioners] is only the portion where [petitioners'] house is located which has an area of 74.42 sq.m. and [respondent] is DECLARED the lawful owner of the remaining portion from what was sold with an area of 2,235.58 sq.m. In addition, [petitioners] are ORDERED to return to [respondent] the possession of the aforesaid 2,235.58 sq.m.-portion and to cease and desist from again dispossessing [respondent] of the said portion.
SO ORDERED. 5
The MCTC ruled in respondent's favor, considering that the Deed of Absolute Sale, in no uncertain terms, states that only a portion of respondent's 2,310 sq.m. property is being sold to the petitioners. The MCTC reasoned that, had the respondent really intended to sell the whole lot, the phrase "a portion of" would have been dispensed with. Moreover, the pieces of evidence submitted by the petitioners do not support their claim of ownership over the subject lot, since both documents merely state that Milton Crosa is the administrator of the property. Based on respondent's testimony, the trial court determined that the portion sold is only 74.42 sq.m., which covers the area of the petitioners' house.
Petitioners appealed the MCTC's ruling to the RTC. acEHCD
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC rendered a Decision 6 on December 1, 2016 affirming the MCTC's judgment in toto and dismissing the petitioners' appeal, thus:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court resolved to AFFIRM in toto the assailed decision of the 12th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Abuyog-Javier, dated June 24, 2016. This instant appeal is ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 7
Petitioners questioned the denial of their appeal via a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court to the CA
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On February 15, 2017, the CA issued its first assailed Resolution dismissing the petition for review for being filed out of time, thus:
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby resolves to:
1.) DENY petitioners' Motion for Additional Extension of Time to File Petition for Review under Rule 42 filed on 28 December 2016;
2.) ADMIT respondent's Opposition to petitioners' motions for extension (sic) time to file petition for review; and
3.) DISMISS petitioners' Petition for Review for having been filed out of time.
SO ORDERED. 8
According to the appellate court, petitioners received a copy of the RTC's decision on December 2, 2016, giving them fifteen days therefrom, or until December 17, 2016, within which to file their petition. On December 16, 2016, petitioners moved for an extension of fifteen days, or until January 1, 2017, to file their petition. Before the first extension expired, or on December 28, 2016, petitioners moved anew for additional fifteen days to file their petition, or until January 16, 2017, citing "heavy caseload of equal importance being currently handled by their counsel." Respondent opposed the petitioners' motions for extension. Petitioners finally filed their petition, through the Public Attorney's Office Regional Special and Appealed Cases Unit (PAO-RSACU), on January 16, 2017.
While the court a quo granted the first extension prayed for by the petitioners in its January 25, 2017 Minute Resolution, it nevertheless denied the second extension of time requested. The CA reasoned that a second extension of time may only be granted for compelling reasons, and the ground petitioners cited to justify a further extension of time for the filing of their petition cannot be considered as such.
Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the February 15, 2017 Resolution, reiterating their earlier justification of the PAO-RSACU's heavy caseload. In addition thereto, petitioners reasoned that the distance between their residence in Leyte and the PAO-RSACU's office in Cebu City necessitated the additional time since they needed to examine and verify the petition prior to its filing.
On June 28, 2017, the CA issued its second assailed Resolution denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The CA noted that the petitioners never raised the issue of distance in any of their motions for extension of time. Thus, they were considered to have waived their right to raise this ground. The appellate court disposed of the motion in this wise:
Tendering no new matters which would warrant a reconsideration or modification, much less, reversal of the Court's earlier ruling, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. 9
Hence, the instant petition, alleging that the CA committed grievous error in dismissing the petitioners' petition for review and in denying their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners insist that their appeal to the CA was seasonably filed since compelling reasons exist which justified the grant of extension of time for its filing. In any event, petitioners posit that the interest of substantial justice warranted the setting aside of the rigid application of technical application of the rules.
Issue
The sole issue for the resolution of this Court is whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition for review for being filed out of time.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
In standing firm on their earlier resolve, the appellate court stressed that motions for extension of time are not granted as a matter of right; rather the allowance thereof rests in the sound discretion of the court after considering the grounds proffered to justify the same. We concur. SDHTEC
The provisions governing appeals to the CA from decisions of the regional trial courts rendered in its appellate capacity are found in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, Section 1 of which states:
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Based from the foregoing, it is clear that the CA, after it has already allowed petitioners an extension of fifteen days within which to file their petition, may only grant a further extension when presented with the most compelling reason. Thus, when the CA denied petitioners' second motion for extension, it was merely following the abovementioned provision upon finding that the reason proffered for the second extension was not compelling.
To stress, motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court. We have previously reminded that lawyers should never presume that their motions for extension or postponement would be granted or that they would be granted the length of time prayed for. 10 It is only when persuasive reasons exist that the Rules may be relaxed to spare a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. 11 While often used as an excuse by litigants, this Court has repeatedly held that the mere pressure and volume of work is not a compelling reason to justify the extension of the periods for the filing of petitions and other pleadings before the courts. 12
It is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly followed in the interest of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will. It bears emphasizing that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons. 13 In the present case, petitioners failed to convince this Court of the need to relax the rules and the eventual injustice that they will suffer if their prayer is not granted.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed February 15, 2017 and June 28, 2017 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 10536, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Resolutions.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 179-183. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
2.Id. at 194-196.
3.Id. at 165-177.
4.Id. at 139-156.
5.Id. at 155-156.
6.Id. at 165-177.
7.Id. at 177.
8.Id. at 183.
9.Id. at 196.
10.Bernardo v. People, G.R. No. 166980, April 4, 2007, 520 SCRA 332, citing Cosmo Entertainment Management, Inc. v. La Ville Commercial Corporation, G.R. No. 152801. August 20, 2004, 437 SCRA 145.
11.Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 193034, July 20, 2015.
12.Heirs of Ramon B. Gayares v. Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 178477, July 16, 2012; Naguit v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 188839, June 22, 2015.
13.Brgy. Dasmariñas v. Creative Play Corner School, G.R. No. 169942, January 24, 2011, 640 SCRA 294, citing Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 171565, July 13, 2010.