Arellano v. Bartolome (G.R. No. 233847. January 10, 2018)
CASE DIGEST: [G.R. No. 233847, January 10, 2018]. LUDY ARELLANO AND JETH ARELLANO, AS SUBSTITUTED BY ARNEL STA. IGLESIA ARELLANO AND FELIX NERI -- VERSUS -- MARILYN B. BARTOLOME AND CAROLINA B. JASTIO.
FACTS: Petitioners asked for an extension of time to file their Rule 42 Petition with the the Court of Appeals (CA). They cite as reason "lack of material time and voluminous annexes to be attached to the petition." The CA did not allow such extension and dismissed their Rule 42 Petition outright.
ISSUE: Was the CA correct in not allowing extension and due course to their Rule 42 Petition?
HELD: Yes, the CA was correct. As the CA correctly ruled, petitioners' reasons in their Second Motion for Extension to file their Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court are not sufficient and compelling reasons that would allow the grant of an additional period beyond the original 15-day additional period granted in their first motion for extension. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed their Petition for Review for having been filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Moreover, the issues raised herein are factual in nature and not proper for a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which allow only questions of law.
In any case, the allegations in the Complaint filed by respondents Marilyn B. Bartolome and Carolina B. Jastio (respondents) against petitioners, as well as the evidence presented, adequately support the lower courts' findings – that respondents have sufficiently established that they were in prior possession of the property, which possession has been disturbed by petitioners' entry therein; and that petitioners failed to prove their claim that the property subject of this case is included in the 2,254-square meter real property over which they have been claiming rights, pursuant to their Deed of Sale – to warrant further review by this Court.
See Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, which states: SEC. 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 supplied)
FACTS: Petitioners asked for an extension of time to file their Rule 42 Petition with the the Court of Appeals (CA). They cite as reason "lack of material time and voluminous annexes to be attached to the petition." The CA did not allow such extension and dismissed their Rule 42 Petition outright.
ISSUE: Was the CA correct in not allowing extension and due course to their Rule 42 Petition?
HELD: Yes, the CA was correct. As the CA correctly ruled, petitioners' reasons in their Second Motion for Extension to file their Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court are not sufficient and compelling reasons that would allow the grant of an additional period beyond the original 15-day additional period granted in their first motion for extension. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed their Petition for Review for having been filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Moreover, the issues raised herein are factual in nature and not proper for a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which allow only questions of law.
In any case, the allegations in the Complaint filed by respondents Marilyn B. Bartolome and Carolina B. Jastio (respondents) against petitioners, as well as the evidence presented, adequately support the lower courts' findings – that respondents have sufficiently established that they were in prior possession of the property, which possession has been disturbed by petitioners' entry therein; and that petitioners failed to prove their claim that the property subject of this case is included in the 2,254-square meter real property over which they have been claiming rights, pursuant to their Deed of Sale – to warrant further review by this Court.
See Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, which states: SEC. 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 supplied)
