ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 140172.� August 3, 2005]
SIMPAO vs. RIVERA
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 3 2005.
G.R. No. 140172 (SPOUSES GUILLERMA M. SIMPAO and FELINO H. SIMPAO, vs. SPOUSES WENCESLAO M.RIVERA and ANTONIA M. RIVERA, OSCAR O. CIMAGALA, DEPUTY SHERIFF and HON. JUDGE BAUDILIO K. DOSDOS.)
For our resolution is the petition for review on certiorari filed by spouses Guillerma and Felino Simpao, herein petitioners, against spouses Wenceslao and Antonia Rivera and Deputy Sheriff Oscar Cimagala, respondents. The instant petition assails the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 1999 and September 23, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 51893.
On January 26, 1990, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol a complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioners.
On April 27, 1990, both parties submitted to the trial court a
Compromise Agreement specifying, among others, the following: that petitioners
admit having sold to respondents by installment "Lot 6431-C-7 of Subdivision
Plan Psd-221332;" that petitioners also admit that respondents have fully paid
the purchase price for the said lot; and that should petitioners fail to
deliver to respondents the title of the lot and the Deed of Absolute Sale,
petitioners shall pay them the sum of P300,000.00.
On April 27, 1990, the trial court rendered a Decision approving the parties' Compromise Agreement.
For petitioners' failure to deliver to respondents the title of
the lot or to pay P300,000.00, the latter, on May 31, 1990, filed a
motion for execution of judgment which was granted by the trial court on June
4, 1990.
On June 28, 1990, Deputy Sheriff Oscar Cimagala levied upon two (2) parcels of land belonging to petitioners in satisfaction of the Compromise Judgment.
However, petitioners could not deliver to respondents the titles
of the two (2) parcels of land, claiming that they are in the possession of
their daughter who is abroad. They then offered to pay respondents the sum of P400,000.00,
in lieu of the said titles, but the latter refused.
On October 13, 1998, the trial court issued an Order declaring the twin titles (TCT No. 22961 and TCT No. 10071) lost by legal fiction; and directing the Register of Deeds to issue the "corresponding titles" in favor of respondents. Petitioners received a copy of this Order on October 19, 1998.
On October 30, 1998, petitioners filed a notice of appeal from the Order dated October 19, 1998.
Respondents filed an opposition, contending that the October 13, 1998 Order is interlocutory, hence, not appealable.
On December 21, 1998, the trial court issued an Order denying due course to petitioners' notice of appeal and reiterated its Order directing the Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding titles to respondents.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied on January 12, 1999.
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari [1] cralaw alleging that in issuing the Orders dated December 21, 1998 and January 12, 1999, respondent judge gravely abused its discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
On April 30, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari, thus:
"The petition for certiorari and annulment of Court orders and Sheriff's sale faces outright dismissal.
An annulment may be based only on ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. (Section 2, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). The issue between the parties is the matter of execution of the decision since the parties submitted a compromise agreement approved by the trial court. The grounds for annulment are absent.
If considered as a petition for certiorari solely, petitioners did not state the material dates they received copies of the sheriff's final deed of sale, the orders dated February 10, 1998 and October 13, 1998 (Section 1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
The petition was also filed nineteen (19) days late (Section 4, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by SC Resolution dated July 21, 1998, Bar Matter No. 803).
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED due course and DISMISSED."
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the Appellate Court denied the same in its Resolution of September 23, 1999 for being late by seventeen (17) days.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.
We reviewed carefully the records and found that there are indeed procedural infirmities committed by petitioners in the filing of their petition with the Court of Appeals. In fact, in the petition before us, they admit "having filed their motion for reconsideration seventeen (17) days beyond the reglementary period" [2] cralaw and that their petition was filed one (1) day late. [3] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo at pp 22-24.
[2] cralaw Id. at p.3.
[3] cralaw Id. at p.4.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
