SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241624. February 18, 2019.]
SPOUSES TOLENTINA MAURICIO SALES AND MANUEL SALES, REPRESENTED BY JOHNNIE SALES, petitioners,vs. CHARLES BURNS, JR., AS JOINED BY HIS WIFE AND ALL OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS THROUGH HIM, AND LGTM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY TEODORO N. CAMACHO IV, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 February 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241624 (Spouses Tolentina Mauricio Sales and Manuel Sales, represented by Johnnie Sales v. Charles Burns, Jr., as joined by his wife and all other persons claiming rights through him, and LGTM Corporation, represented by Teodoro N. Camacho IV)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition 1 outright for being filed out of time.
Under Section 2, 2 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners Spouses Tolentina Mauricio Sales and Manuel Sales, represented by Johnnie Sales (petitioners), had fifteen (15) days from receipt of the August 16, 2018 Resolution 3 (CA Resolution) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108456 denying the motion for reconsideration 4 within which to file a petition for review on certiorari. Records show that petitioners received the CA Resolution on August 29, 2018, 5 thus they had until September 13, 2018 to file their petition. Rather than doing so, they filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, 6 which was granted by the Court in a Resolution 7 dated October 1, 2018. Petitioners were given a period of thirty (30) days from expiration of the reglementary period, or until October 13, 2018, within which to file their petition for review, with a warning that the same shall be the last and no further extension will be given. 8 In complete disregard of the Court's warning, petitioners filed a Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review 9 on October 12, 2018, which was denied by this Court in a Resolution 10 dated November 14, 2018. Nevertheless, petitioners still filed the present Petition for Review on January 23, 2019. Considering that it has been filed out of time, the CA rulings have become final, executory, and unappealable.
In any event, the CA did not commit any reversible error in holding that the Waiver of Possessory Rights 11 (Waiver) relied upon by petitioners only entitled them to possession over the subject property and did not include ownership thereof. 12 The contents of the Waiver clearly established that Mary Agnes Burns (Mary), the owner of the subject property and mother of respondent Charles Burns, Jr. (Charles), intended to transfer mere possession, and not ownership, over the subject property. 13 Otherwise, she would have explicitly stated the same and would not have repeatedly used the term "possession" throughout the body of the document. Where the language of a contract is clear, its literal meaning shall be in control without reference to extrinsic facts or aids. 14
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-26.
2. Section 2. Time for filing; extension. — The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition.
3.Rollo, pp. 50-51. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
4. Titled as Motion for Reconsideration with Notice of Change of Address; see id. at 45-49.
5. See id. at 19.
6.Id. at 3-5.
7.Id. at 6. Signed by Deputy Division Clerk of Court Teresita Aquino Tuazon.
8. See id.
9.Id. at 8-10.
10.Id. at 12.
11. Dated December 29, 1992; id. at 61.
12. See id. at 41-42.
13. See id. at 42.
14. See Norton Resources and Development Corporation v. All Asia Bank Corporation, 620 Phil. 381, 388 (2009).