ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 159861. July 19, 2004]

DE RAMIREZ vs. CAMIWET

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 19 2004.

G.R. No. 159861 (Estela Ay-Ay Vda. De Ramirez, etc., et al. vs. Carlos M. Camiwet, et al.)

This is to clarify the resolution of this Court dated January 21, 2004.

On September 26, 2003, this Court received a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal by Certiorari" against the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 65787 filed by petitioners. In a resolution dated October 20, 2003, this Court allowed petitioners a 30-day extension within which to file their petition.

On November 25, 2003, instead of filing a petition, petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation claiming that private respondents' illegal acts of invasion and occupation of the land owned by petitioners, subject of this case, have ceased to exist thereby making the petition moot and academic. As a consequence of this manifestation, this Court resolved on January 21, 2004 to consider the case Closed and Terminated.

Private respondents filed on March 15, 2004 a Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification praying that this Court expressly declare that petitioners have failed to file a petition and that the decision of the Court of Appeals has become final and executory. In a resolution dated March 31, 2004, this Court required petitioners to comment on the Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification. Said Comment was filed on May 21, 2004, wherein petitioners expressed their opposition to private respondents' motion.

It is clear that no petition has ever been filed before this Court. Petitioners initially asked for an extension to file a petition. However, despite the granting of the extension, no such petition was filed. Instead, petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation alleging that the case was moot and academic. This Court did not rule on the truth of the matters stated in the Urgent Manifestation but only took it as a manifestation that petitioners were not going to file a petition within the period given them, which had in fact by then lapsed.

Since no petition was filed within the period allowed, this Court resolved that this case was Closed and Terminated.

WHEREFORE, the resolution of January 21, 2004 is hereby clarified as being based solely on the ground of the non-filing of the petition within the period allowed.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE