[ G.R. No. 110968. February 28, 2000]

SPS. REYNALDO & BEATRIZ DEL ROSARIO et al., vs. CA et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28, 2000.

G.R. No. 110968 (Spouses Reynaldo Del Rosario and Beatriz Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, Carlideth Papasin and Carlito Papasin represented by their guardian Aida Octavo.)

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 14, 1993 in C.A. G.R. Sp. No. 2785 granting the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by minors Carlideth Papasin, represented by their guardian Aida Octavo, and giving the said minors an option to buy subject land of Lourdes Papasin, upon payment of the sum of Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred (P31,500.00) Pesos, and ordering the latter, through her legal heirs, legal representatives or successors-in-interest, to execute the deed of conveyance over the said property in favor of the said minors, the herein private respondents.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Lourdes Papasin owned a house and lot at 7718 Santos compound, Dr. A. Santos Avenue, San Dionisio, Paranaque, Metro Manila. In 1973, she allowed her brother, Carlos Papasin, and the latter's wife, Editha Papasin, to occupy such property, with the understanding that should she (Lourdes Papasin) need it, the Papasin spouses will vacate the same.

On February 23, 1977, Lourdes Papasin asked the Papasin spouses to vacate the said property but they refused to do so, prompting her to bring a complaint for ejectment against them, docketed as Civil case No. 3641 before the Municipal Court of Paranaque. However, on jurisdictional grounds, the case was dismissed. Lourdes Papasin then filed with Branch 59 of the Regional Trial Court in Makati a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against the same Papasin spouses.

On October 5, 1987, the trial court rendered judgement disposing as follows:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered judgement is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Declaring the defendant and her husbands the real owners of the house, erected on the plaintiff's land and located at Dr. A. Santos Avenue, San Dionisio, Paranaque;

2. Declaring the defendant and her husband as builders in good faith;

3. Giving the plaintiff an option to appropriate defendant's house by paying the latter the amount of P26,400.00 or to allow the defendant to buy her land by paying the amount of P21,000.00, which option shall be exercised within one year finality of this decision. That the defendant shall have the right to retain the house until its value is fully paid, without paying any rental to the plaintiff.

4. Dismissing defendant's counterclaim, for lack of basis, and

5. With costs against the plaintiff.

SO ORDERED."1 Rollo, p. 57.

On November 6, 1987, a motion for modification of the aforesaid judgement was presented by defendant Edith Papasin but on August 6, 1989, before the trial court of origin could act on such motion, the defendant movant died of cervical cancer, leaving as heirs her husband, Carlos Papasin, from whom she was separated, and their two minor children, Carlito Papasin and Carlideth Papasin.

On September 6, 1989, Carlos Papasin sold the house and Lourdes Papasin sold the lot to the spouses, Beatriz del Rosario and Reynaldo del Rosario, the latter' sister and brother-in-law.

On November 3, 1989, the lower court modified its aforesaid decision by increasing the value of the lot from P21,000.00 to P 31,000.00 and the house from P26,400.00 to p97,240.00 and giving the plaintiff the other option of allowing the defendant to buy her land by paying the amount of P31,500.00 which option to be exercised within one year from finality of the decision.2 Modified decision, Rollo, p. 68.

On October 31, 1991, in view of the death of defendant Editha Papasin, a notice of Death and Motion for Substitution of Party were filed by her lawyer. On November 5, 1991, another motion was presented, this time for the defendant to be allowed to exercise the option to buy subject land of the plaintiff, Lourdes Papasin, in accordance with the modified decision aforementioned.

The lower court granted defendant's Motion for Substitution but denied the Motion to Exercise Defendant's Option on February 10, 1992. Finding no new substantial and proper basis for reversing or modifying its said Order, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration of the substitute defendants, prompting them to bring an original petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals against Lourdes Papasin and herein petitioner spouses, Reynaldo del Rosario and Beatriz del Rosario bought the land from the former. During the pendency of the said petition, Lourdes Papasin died.

On June 14, 1993, the Court of Appeals granted the petition. Aggrieved, the Del Rosario spouses found their way to this court, assigning the following errors:

I. RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF FEBRUARY 10, 1992 and APRIL 13, 1992 of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI, Metro Manila, Branch 59 In Civil Case No. 3754

II. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE MINOR CHILDREN OF DECEASED DEFENDANT CAN EXERCISE THE OPTION OF THEIR MOTHER.

III. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN ORDERING LOURDES PAPASIN OF (SIC) HER HEIRS OR SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST.

IV. THAT PETITIONERS SPOUSES REYNALDO DEL ROSARIO and BEATRIZ P. DEL ROSARIO ARE PURCHASERS IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE THEY HAVING ACQUIRED THE HOUSE AND LOT FROM THE LEGITIMATE AND OWNERS. (SIC)

V. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE ACTION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 3754 IS AN ACTION IN REM.

Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals must be filed with this Court, through a petition for review on certiorari, within fifteen days from notice of the judgement, final order or resolution appealed from.

The records show as admitted by the petitioners, that a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals was received by them on June 18, 1993. Petitioners had therefore, until July 3, 1993 to file their petition, but unfortunately, petitioners filed their petition only on July 19, 1993.

Although a motion for extension of time was filed by counsel for petitioners on June 30, 1993, the said motion was denied. In the Resolution of August 11, 1993, the Court denied petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time to File their Petition for failure to comply with Revised Circular 1-88 which requires, among others,

1. The full payment of the revised docket and other legal fees within the period therein prescribe, unless exempted by law or rule;

2. Proof of service of a copy of the petition or motion for extension on the lower court, tribunal or office concerned and on the adverse party which must be attached to the petition or motion for extension at the time of filing in the manner provided for under Section 10 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court and Circular 19-91.3 "Effective September 15, 1991, henceforth, a petition or motion for extension filed before this Court shall be dismissed/denied outright if there is no such proof of service in accordance with Sections3 and 5 in relation to Section 10 of rule 13 of the Rules of Court attached to the petition/motion when filed."

WHEREFORE, on the ground of late filing, the Petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

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