G.R. No. 109834 - CECILE SAN JUAN DITCHING AND MA. CORAZON I. SAN JUAN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ADRIANO MOTAS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court finds merit to plaintiffs-appellants Motion for Reconsideration and accordingly the decision of this Court dated June 28, 1991, is hereby reversed and set aside and another judgment is rendered as follows: 1. Ordering defendants-appellees and/or any persons claiming rights under them to vacate immediately the premises of the land owned by plaintiffs-appellants located at Barangay Pansol, Calamba, Laguna, and to surrender possession thereof to the latter; and 2. Defendants-appellees are further ordered to pay the costs." On March 5, 1992, Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero who took over as presiding judge of Branch 34, issued another order (this time upon motion for reconsideration of respondent Motas) reversing the earlier order of Judge Eleuterio Guerrero, as follows: [13] "The rule on the exercise of the Appellate Jurisdiction by Regional Trial Court mandates that cases appealed from the Metropolitan Trial Court be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceeding had in the Court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court (vide. Sec. 22, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129). The fact that the Court then presided by Hon Eleuterio Guerrero conducted hearings and admitted testimonial evidence to clarify points on the decision of the Court a quo, is beyond the purview of the rule. This being the case, the motion for reconsideration must perforce be GRANTED. x x x x x x x x x WHEREFORE, the Order of this Court dated January 8, 1992 is hereby ordered RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and the Order of the Municipal Trial Court dated June 14, 1990 is AFFIRMED en toto. " On April 13, 1992, petitioners filed with the respondents Court of Appeals a motion for extension of fifteen (15 days from April 18, 1992, or up to May 3, 1992, within which to file a petition for review, alleging the following material dates: [14] "2. On March 5, 1992, the said court issued an Order adverse to herein petitioners, a copy of which was received by petitioners thru counsel on March 17, 1992, please see Annex A. 3. From the adverse order, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 27, 1992 which was denied by the court per Order of even date. 4. The Order denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was received by petitioners thru counsel on April 3, 1992, please see Annex B, thus, petitioners have until April 18, 1992 within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari. 5. That petitioners will file a petition for review on certiorari of the said adverse order. 6. Due however, to volume and pressure of work from equally important cases, undersigned cannot file the petition within the time allowed by law, thus, needs a period of fifteen (15) days from April 18, 1992 within which to file said petition." In response thereto, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution granting extension and stating: [15] "Petitioners motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days from