Facts:

The case involves a petition for review filed by Justa, Fredeswinda, Basilio, Vivencio, all surnamed De Asis, and Josefina Diancin (hereinafter referred to as "petitioners") against Angelina, Rosita, and Alejandrita, all surnamed Dumadaug; Federico, Gregorio, and Aurelio, all surnamed De Asis; Fructuosa Torres, in her own behalf and as heir of Consuelo and Jose De Asis-Milagros, Manuel, and Natividad, all surnamed De Asis (hereinafter referred to as "respondents"). The petition was docketed as G.R. No. L-22667 and was filed with the Supreme Court on April 8, 1964, following a decision from the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 24228-R. The Supreme Court, by a resolution dated May 6, 1964, ordered that the petition be given due course. Subsequently, on June 15, 1964, the Clerk of Court notified the petitioners' counsel via registered mail to file a printed brief within thirty days. However, the atto...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Jose, Justa, Fredeswinda, Basilio, Vivencio (all surnamed De Asis) and Josefina Diancin.
   • Respondents: Angelina, Rosita, and Alejandrita (all surnamed Dumadaug); Federico, Gregorio, and Aurelio (all surnamed De Asis); Fructuosa Torres (in her own behalf and as heir of Consuelo and Jose De Asis-Milagros, Manuel, and Natividad surnamed De Asis); and the First Division, Court of Appeals.

2. Procedural Background:

   • The case originated from a decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 24228-R.
   • The Supreme Court docketed the petition for review as G.R. No. L-22667 on April 8, 1964.
   • On May 6, 1964, the Supreme Court resolved to give due course to the petition.

3. Notice to File Brief:

   • On June 15, 1964, the Clerk of Court notified petitioners' counsel, via registered mail, to file the printed brief within 30 days.
   • The notice was sent on July 1, 1964, but the attorney for the petitioners did not claim or collect it.
   • The notice became effective on July 6, 1964, and the deadline to file the brief was August 5, 1964.

4. Failure to File Brief:

   • Petitioners neither filed the brief nor requested an extension.
   • Respondents were also required to file their brief on August 24, 1964, but they failed to do so despite receiving the notice on August 25, 1964.

5. Lack of Interest:

   • No pleadings or motions were filed by either party after August 25, 1964, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Duty to Prosecute:

   • Parties in a case have the duty to diligently prosecute their claims. Failure to do so, such as by not filing required pleadings or briefs, demonstrates a lack of interest in pursuing the case.

2. Effect of Non-Compliance:

   • The failure of petitioners to file their brief within the prescribed period, despite proper notice, and the subsequent inaction of both parties, justified the dismissal of the petition.

3. Judicial Efficiency:

   • Courts cannot indefinitely hold cases open when parties show no interest in moving them forward. Dismissal for lack of prosecution ensures the efficient administration of justice.