ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 141708. July 12, 2000]
SPS. JOSE & MARCELINA GARCIA vs. THE HON. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12 2000.
G.R. No. 141708 (Spouses Jose and Marcelina Garcia vs. The Hon Court of Appeals, (Former Seventeenth Division) Manila, and Spouses Ricardo and Bernarda Tolentino and Spouses Cesar Dumayas and Edna Marilou Dumayas, also known as Edina Dumayas.)
Before this Court for consideration is a petition questioning the decision of the Court of Appeals,1 In CA - G. R. CV No. 56362, promulgated on August 18, 1999; penned by Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, Justices Marina L. Buzon and Edgardo P. Cruz, concurring. which affirmed that of the trial court,2 In Civil Case No. 10849-12, promulgated on November 22, 1996. and the Court of Appeal's resolution,3 Dated November 25, 1999. denying the motion for reconsideration of said decision.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner Jose B. Garcia's father, Celedonio Garcia, owned a parcel of land situated in Bgy. No. 6 San Juan Bautista, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte (Lot 490).
Sometime in 1950, Celedonio sold the land to Ricardo and Bernarda Tolentino with the condition hat the children of Celedonio shall have he preferential right to buy the property should the Tolentinos decide to sell the land and improvements thereon.
Petitioners own the adjoining lot (Lot 498). On October 10, 1994, in violation of their agreement, private respondents sold the property to spouses Cesar and Edna Dumayas in the amount of P50,000.00. Even as adjoining owners, petitioners were not notified of the sale.
Thereafter, the property was classified as an agricultural land when in fact it was a cornland.4 The property is now registered with the Registry of Deeds, Ilocos Norte, under OCT No. P-67584.
Petitioners filed a complaint for Legal Redemption and Damages with the Regional Trial Court, Ilocos Norte against defendant spouses. As all defendants are residents of Hawaii, United States of America, petitioners filed a motion for extrajudicial service of summons.
On August 24, 1995, the trial court granted the motion.
For failure of respondents to file their respective answers, petitioners filed a motion to declare respondents in default, which the trial court granted. Thus, petitioners presented their evidence ex-parte.
On November 22, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint. Upon denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On August 18, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merit.
On September 17, 1999, petitioners filed an urgent motion to extend time within which to file a motion for reconsideration.
On November 25, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. The Court said:
"Considering that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible (Section 2, Rule 9 of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals), plaintiffs-appellants' "Urgent Motion to Extend Time Within Which to File Motion for Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED. Likewise, the "Motion for Reconsideration" filed by counsel for plaintiffs-appellants on September 17, 1999 is DENIED for having been filed late.
"It appearing that a copy of the decision dated August 18, 1999, which was sent to spouses appellees Ricardo and Bernarda Tolentino at their address on record was returned to this Court unserved with notation on the envelope "MOVED-LEFT NO ADDRESS", service of copy of said decision on said appellees is considered complete.
SO ORDERED." 5 Rollo , p. 41.
Hence, this petition.6 Filed on February 1, 2000.
We resolve to dismiss the petition.
The petition is evidently used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.7 Gegare vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 587 [1998]; Chico vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 33 [1998]; Fajardo vs. Bautista, 232 SCRA 291 [1994]; Sy vs. Romero, 214 SCRA 187 [1992]; People vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 539, [1991].
Having belatedly filed the motion for reconsideration, petitioner cannot come to this Court on certiorari. Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a remedy from the adverse consequences of petitioner's own omission to file a timely motion for reconsideration.8 Alcosero vs. NLRC, 288 SCRA 129 [1998].
The filing of the motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution or decision of the tribunal, board or office is, subject to well-recognized exceptions, a condition sine qua non to the institution of a special civil action for certiorari.9 Ibid. In this case, there are no applicable exceptions that would merit a relaxation of the rule.
Thusly, certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail itself of the same must observe the rules laid down by law.10 Manila Midtown Hotels and Land Corporation vs. NLRC, 288 SCRA 259 [1998]; Zapanta vs. NLRC, 292 SCRA 580 [1998].
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
