ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 122249. August 6, 2003]

AGUIRRE vs. CA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 6 2003.

G.R. No. 122249 (Reynaldo Aguirre, Telesforo Aguirre et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Elias, Jose, Arsenia and Rogelio, all surnamed Balitaan, et al. (with UDK 12017).)

In an action for Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Partition, Malicious Prosecution and Damages docketed as Civil Case No. 202, a decision in favor of herein petitioners Reynaldo, Telesforo, Remedios, Alfredo and Belen, all surnamed Aguirre, Vicenta, Horacio and Florencio, all surnamed Magtibay, and Leonila, Cecilia, Antonio and Venancio, all surnamed Medrano and Zosima Quiambao and against herein private respondents Elias, Jose, Arsenia and Rogelio, all surnamed Balitaan and Maria Rosales was rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Batangas (Branch 2).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC.

Petitioners filed with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to appeal by way of petition for review on certiorari the aforesaid decision of the Court of Appeals through registered mail posted on October 19, 1995, received by this Court on November 22, 1995 and assigned a temporary docket number, UDK 12017.

In a Resolution dated December 11, 1995, the Court denied the said Motion for Extension for failure to pay the full amount of legal fees and submit an affidavit of service of the motion. The Resolution became final and executory on January 31, 1996. Consequently, an Entry of Judgment was made. Per instruction of the Court, the Judicial Records Office sent a Letter of Transmittal dated May 9, 1996 to the Court of Appeals ordering the return of the records of the case to the court of origin for execution of judgment to which the appellate court complied per its transmittal letter dated July 16, 1996.

In the meanwhile, on the basis of the Motion for Extension to file a petition for review on certiorari involving the same decision of the Court of Appeals which was personally filed with this Court by petitioners on October 24, 1995, the same was docketed as G.R. No. 122249, the herein above-entitled case. This Court granted the motion in its Resolution dated November 22, 1995.

Petitioners filed their petition within the extended period and the Court required private respondents to file a Comment in its Resolution dated January 15, 1996. In their Motion for Extension to file Comment, private respondents inquired whether or not the December 11, 1995 Resolution in UDK 12017 had been reconsidered.

The Court in a Resolution dated March 11, 1996 required petitioners to explain why two similar motions for extension to file their petition were filed, one through registered mail posted on October 19, 1995 and another by personal filing with the Court on October 24, 1995. In their Explanation, petitioners expressed that after posting their motion for extension on October 19, 1995, they filed another motion personally with the Court on October 24, 1995 because they realized that the number of copies enclosed in the posted motion did not fleet the requirements of this Court and the money order enclosed therein was insufficient to cover the docket fees. Petitioners further manifested that they presumed said manifestation was granted when the motion which they filed personally was granted; and prayed that the mailed motion be disregarded and the money order enclosed therein be mailed back to petitioners.

The Court Noted and Accepted the above explanation in its Resolution dated June 5, 1996.

On October 21, 1997, private respondents filed their Comment. Petitioners were required to file their Reply in a Resolution dated November 19, 1997. After considering the allegations, issues and arguments in the petition for review, comment and reply, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda in a Resolution dated February 9, 1998.

On April 7, 1998 and April 15, 1998, private respondents and petitioners filed their respective memoranda.

Notwithstanding that the required pleadings are now complete, the Court cannot consider the same submitted for decision absent the records of the case which had been remanded to the court of origin in 1996 by virtue of the entry of judgment made in UDK 12017.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING , the Chief of the JRO is DIRECTED, within ten (10) days from notice hereof, to cause the elevation to this Court of the complete records of Civil Case No. 202 entitled "Reynaldo Aguirre, et al. vs. Tiburcio Balitaan, et al." adjudicated by the Regional Trial Court of Batangas (Branch 2).

Let the parties be furnished a copy of herein Resolution.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE