G.R. No. 155758 ; October 31, 2008
HEIRS OF JOSE ESPLANA, namely: YOLANDA BOTIN VDA. DE ESPLANA, TERESA B. ESPLANA, LIZA B. ESPLANA, SHIRLEY B. ESPLANA, ALMA B. ESPLANA, JACK B. ESPLANA, and LINA B. ESPLANA, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF PEDRO DE LIMA, represented by JAIME DE LIMA, Respondents.

FACTS

On July 27, 1995, Jose Esplana filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession, quieting of title with damages against Pedro de Lima before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Baao, Camarines Sur. The MTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) remanded the case to the MTC to decide the issue of ownership. The MTC, after trial, dismissed the complaint, declared Jose Esplana’s Deed of Absolute Sale spurious, and quieted defendant Pedro de Lima’s title. Jose Esplana appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the MTC decision in toto. Jose Esplana’s counsel received the RTC decision on February 21, 2002. Jose Esplana had died on December 12, 2001. On March 7, 2002, counsel filed a motion for a 30-day extension to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, citing Jose Esplana’s death, daily court appearances, and voluminous paperwork. The Court of Appeals granted only a 15-day extension, until March 23, 2002. Counsel received this resolution on May 29, 2002, but had already filed the petition for review on April 5, 2002. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for being filed out of time. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, alleging the death of their father and postal delay, was denied.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolutions dated June 27, 2002 and October 1, 2002, which dismissed the petition for review for being filed out of time.

RULING

The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court allows only a 15-day extension to file a petition for review, and a further extension not exceeding 15 days may be granted only for the most compelling reason. The grounds stated by petitioners (death of the original party, observance of his wake, and indecision to pursue the appeal) did not constitute the most compelling reason, especially since the death occurred in December 2001 and notice of the RTC decision was received in February 2002. Furthermore, petitioners failed to pay the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, as required by Rule 42. Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right, and the requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed. The petition was dismissed and the assailed Resolutions were affirmed.