Case Digest (G.R. No. 174034)
Facts:
Heirs of Marilou K. Santiago, represented by Dennis K. Santiago, Lourdes K. Santiago and Eufemia K. Santiago, v. Alfonso Aguila, G.R. No. 174034, March 09, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioners are the heirs of Marilou K. Santiago, owners of a 25,309-square meter coconut land tenanted by respondent Alfonso Aguila. The heirs filed an ejectment action before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) alleging that Aguila cut down five coconut trees in violation of the Coconut Preservation Act of 1995 and deprived them of their harvest share; Aguila resisted the complaint.
On May 31, 2000 the PARAD ruled for the heirs, finding Aguila deliberately failed to pay rents, terminating the tenancy, ordering him to vacate, and awarding past shares. Aguila appealed on June 16, 2005 to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The DARAB set aside the PARAD decision and ordered execution of a new leasehold contract; the DARAB denied the heirs’ motion for reconsideration on March 3, 2006 (decision received by the heirs on March 6, 2006).
Because the heirs received the DARAB notice on March 6, 2006, their reglementary period to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) expired on March 21, 2006. On March 15, 2006 they filed with the CA a motion for extension of thirty (30) days — i.e., until April 20, 2006 — and subsequently filed their petition for review on April 20, 2006, the last day of the extension they had requested.
On April 28, 2006 the CA acted on the heirs’ motion for extension but granted only a fifteen (15)–day extension (thus making April 5 the cut-off) and found the petition defective for bearing a special power of attorney (SPA) that named a Dennis Matubis as principal (allegedly a misnomer for petitioner Dennis K. Santiago). Concluding the petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioners’ petition for review as filed out of time?
- Was dismissal warranted because of the alleged defect in the special power of attorney attached to t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)