ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 140442.December 6, 1999]

DE CHAVEZ (RIP) et al. vs. HON. HERNANDEZ

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 06, 1999.

G.R. No. 140442(Solomon de Chavez (RIP) and Asuncion Bamba vs. Hon. Jose V. Hernandez [Judge of the RTC, Br. 64, Mauban, Quezon], Miguel Jurado and Guillermo Jurado.)

In 1997, respondents Jurado obtained a favorable judgment from the lower court reviving a decision rendered in 1979 in their favor by the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon province. Later, respondent judge upon clarification sought by respondents Jurado, issued an order dated March 25, 1999 stating that the land to be reconveyed to respondents Jurado under the revived decision of the then CFI involves not only thirteen (13) hectares but the entire 20.0915 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-61982. When petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, they filed this petition for certiorari.

The petition should be dismissed for two reasons: First, petitioners failed to comply with the requirement concerning the statement of material dates under Circular No. 39-98. Particularly, there was no statement as to when petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration of the March 25 , 1999 Order. Such omission constitutes a sufficient ground for the outright dismissal of the petition (Rule 46, Section 3 in relation to Rule 56, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by Cir. 39-98). Second, in immediately resorting to this court from the RTC order, petitioner likewise failed to observe the hierarchy of courts. Direct resort to this court cannot be allowed in this case since there are no special and important reasons specifically set out in the petition (Uy v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 167; People v. Cuaresma, 172 SCRA 415).

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE