SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-22667 March 1, 1968

JOSE, JUSTA, FREDESWINDA, BASILIO, VIVENCIO, all surnamed DE ASIS AND JOSEFINA DIANCIN Petitioners, vs. ANGELINA, ROSITA and ALEJANDRITA all surnamed DUMADAUG; FEDERICO, GREGORIO and AURELIO all surnamed DE ASIS; FRUCTUOSO TORRES, in her own behalf and as heir of CONSUELO and JOSE DE ASIS; MILAGROS, MANUEL and NATIVIDAD all surnamed DE ASIS; and the FIRST DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Gaudencio D. Demaisip for petitioners.
Rodrigo J. Harder and Luis Lozano for respondents.

RE S O L U T I O N

REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.:chanrobles virtual law library

This petition for the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in its case CA-G.R. No. 24228-R was docketed as case G.R. No. L-22667 in this Supreme Court on April 8, 1964.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

By Resolution of May 6, 1964, the Court ordered that the Petition be given due course.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Thereafter, in conformity with section 3 of Revised Rule 56, on June 15, 1964, the Clerk of this Court notified and required the counsel for petitioners, by registered mail, to file his printed brief within thirty (30) days.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Despite notice from the Postmaster sent on July 1, 1964, the attorney for the appellant did not collect nor claim the notice of the Clerk of Court. The notice, therefore, became effective five (5) days thereafter, on July 6, 1964 and the period to file the brief on August 5, 1964. No brief was filed nor did petitioners ask for any extension. The respondents were then required on August 24, 1964 to file their brief; but they also failed to do so, despite receipt of the requirement on August 25, 1964.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Since the last mentioned date, no pleadings or motions have been filed by either party. Lack of interest is most evident.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is ordered dismissed for lack of prosecution. No costs. So ordered.

Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.