ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 152524.February 20, 2002]

HEIRS OF MARCIANO CILOT, vs. HEIRS OF GREGORIO PENA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 20 2002.

G.R. No. 152524(Heirs of Marciano Cilot, represented by Porferio Cilot vs. Heirs of Gregorio Pena, represented by Bernardita C. Jimenez and Sofronio Cilot.)

Petitioners' motion to litigate as pauper dated 29 January 2002 submitting therewith the attached affidavit of indigency of Porferio Cilot and certification of the Municipal Assessor of Tiwi, Albay, that Porferio Cilot has no real property in his name is GRANTED, and their manifestation and motion dated 11 January 2002 stating that the late filing of the petition for review on certiorari is not deliberate in view of the failure of the receiving clerk of the Special and Appealed Cases Division (SACD) of the Public Attorney's Office to timely distribute the assailed decision/resolution in this case; with prayer for the admission of the attached petition is NOTED.

In accordance with Rule 45 in relation to Rule 56 and other pertinent provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, only petitions which are accompanied by or comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained.On the basis thereof, the Court Resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for petitioners' failure to:

a) take the appeal within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days in accordance with Section 2, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5(a), Rule 56;

b) state the material date of receipt of the assailed judgment pursuant to Sections 4 (b) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56; and

c) submit a valid verification of the petition in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 in relation to Section 1, Rule 45, as well as a valid certification against forum shopping in accordance with Section 5, Rule 7, Section 4(e), Rule 45 in relation to Section 2, Rule 42 and Sections 4 and 5(d), Rule 56, it appearing that said verification and certification are not duly notarized.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE