G.R. No. L-41358 March 16, 1988
ABELARDO APORTADERA, SR., ABELARDO APORTADERA, JR., and RUBEN C. BATOY, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the CFI, Branch I, Davao City, JOSE S. JOAQUIN as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the Deceased Helen Corrales-Joaquin, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition with the Court of Appeals, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance in a quieting of title case (Civil Case No. 8403) filed by respondent Jose S. Joaquin. The appellate court promulgated a resolution on October 10, 1974, denying due course to the petition. A copy of this resolution was sent by registered mail to petitioners’ counsel at “P.O. BOX 89, Anda St., Davao City.” The registered mail was returned unclaimed despite notations indicating a second and last notice were sent. Consequently, for failure to file a motion for reconsideration, the resolution became final, and an entry of judgment was issued.
Petitioners, upon receiving a copy of the entry of judgment by ordinary mail on April 16, 1975, filed a motion to vacate the entry of judgment. They argued their counsel never received the October 1974 resolution, claiming the P.O. Box address used was closed and that inquiries to the Court of Appeals in December 1974 and January 1975 went unanswered. The Court of Appeals denied their motion, noting the record showed the mail was unclaimed. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals resolution denying due course became final and executory despite petitioners’ counsel not claiming the registered mail containing it from the post office.

RULING

Yes, the resolution became final and executory. Service by registered mail is deemed complete upon the expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice from the postmaster, if the mail is unclaimed, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court. The presumption that official duty was regularly performed applies to the postmaster’s act of sending notices. The Court found the petitioners’ claim—that the P.O. Box was closed—to be an unsubstantiated afterthought, as it was not raised in their initial motion before the Court of Appeals but only in the subsequent petition to the Supreme Court. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, supported by notations of multiple notices on the envelope, were upheld. Since the counsel failed to claim the mail within the prescribed period, service was effective, the reglementary period to move for reconsideration lapsed, and the judgment became final. No extraordinary circumstances warranting a relaxation of the rules were presented. The petition was dismissed.