[ G.R. No. 139244. July 24, 2000]

DRA. MYRNA DENINA vs. SPS. RUBEN & LITA CUADERNO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 24 2000.

G.R. No. 139244 (Dra. Myrna Denina vs. Spouses Ruben and Lita Cuaderno.)

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in Ca G.R. SP No. 52944, entitled "Dra. Myrna T. Denina vs. Sps. Ruben and Lita Cuaderno, represented by Greg S. Taruc," dated 9 June 1999 and 12 July 1999, which dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment filed by petitioner and denied her motion for reconsideration, respectively.

This petition arose from a conflict of claims among petitioner, respondents and Rosita Songcuya over a 105-square meter parcel of land located in a project area owned and administered by the National Housing (NHA), which was available for allocation and distribution.

Prior to the entry of the NHA into the project area, the original occupant of the contested lot was Francisco Robidillo who had already erected a structure on the said lot and rented out a portion of the structure to the spouses Ruben and Lita Cuaderno. In 1983, petitioner also rented one of the rooms in the structure and, as such, she was listed as one of the lessees of the structure in 1987 census verification. During the course of petitioner's lease, the Robidillos, Francisco and his son, Danilo, secured loans from petitioner for which they executed a mortgage on the structure and the contested lot in favor of petitioner. Because the Robidillos continuously obtained loans from petitioner, their indebtedness ballooned to P400,000.00. To pay off the loan, the Robidillos allegedly sold the entire structure (including the portion rented and occupied by the Cuadernos) and their rights and interest on the contested lot to petitioner. Petitioner then constructed her own structure, which occupies 59.48 square meters of the contested lot.

Prior to the sale of the entire structure to petitioner, the Cuaderno's were never given any notice or option to exercise their right of first refusal with respect to the 31.52-square meter portion of the contested lot occupied by them. Thus, despite the sale, the Cuaderno spouses and their son, Bernardo, remained in their leased unit and continued paying the monthly rental to petitioner.

Having bought the entire structure, petitioner requested the NHA for the award of the house in her name. However, Greg S. Taruc, in behalf of the Cuaderno family, filed a letter-complaint with the NHA for the disqualification of the Robidillos and petitioner as awardees of the contested lot. Likewise, a certain Rosita Songcuya also filed a claim on the said lot alleging that she had also bought the rights of the Robidillos and, as such, she constructed a concrete structure on the contested lot with an area of 14 square meters.

On 23 December 1996, the NHA issued a letter-resolution approving the sale to petitioner and awarding the contested lot to the occupants of the property, as follows: petitioner - 59.48 sq. m.; Bernardo Cuaderno - 31.52 sq. m.; and Rosita Songcuya - 14 sq. m. Not being satisfied with the above resolution, petitioner appealed to the Office of the President. On 7 October 1998, the Office of the President rendered its Decision dismissing petitioner's appeal and affirming the NHA letter-resolution. On 26 May 1999, petitioner filed a petition for the annulment of the decision of the Office of the President before the Court of Appeals. On 9 June 1999, the Court of Appeals, dismissed the petition on the grounds that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to annul judgments or final orders of the Office of the President and that, even if the Court of Appeals treated the petition as one for review under Rule 43, the petition would still be dismissed since it did not comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court, i.e, failure to show that the petition was filed within the 15-day reglementary period from receipt of a copy of the assailed decision, failure to attach certified true copies of the material portions of the records of the case and failure to state why service of a copy of the petition was not done personally. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was, likewise, denied.

Hence, the present petition.

The Rules of Court is very clear that the proper mode of elevating decisions of quasi-judicial bodies, like the Office of the President, to the Court of Appeals is through an appeal under Rule 43. Accordingly, when petitioner elevated the Decision of the Office of the President to the Court of Appeals through a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, her petition was outrightly dismissed and correctly so. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to annul judgments, final orders or resolutions only of regional trial courts, pursuant to Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. Even if the petition were to be treated as one for review under Rule 43, it could still not be given due course for it did not show on its face that it was filed within the 15-day period from receipts by petitioner of a copy of the impugned decision. Moreover, it lacked certified true copies of the material portions of the record and it did not contain any explanation as to why service of a copy of the petition was not done personally.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com