G.R. No. 133625 - REMEDIOS F. EDRIAL, MAURO EDRIAL JR., MARYLENE EDRIAL, ILDEFONSO EDRIAL, ROSALIND EDRIAL, MARY JEAN EDRIAL, AND SUSAN EDRIAL-VALENZUELA, VS. PEDRO QUILAT-QUILAT, GABRIELA QUILAT-QUILAT, ISIDRA QUILAT-QUILAT, AND ESTANISLAO QUILAT-QUILAT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED." The Resolution denied reconsideration of the challenged Decision. The Facts Respondents Pedro, Gabriela, Isidra and Estanislao - all surnamed Quilat-Quilat -- filed an action for recovery of a parcel of land against Petitioners Remedios, Mauro Jr., Marylene, Idelfonso, Rosalind, Mary Jean -- all surnamed Edrial -- and Susan Edrial-Valenzuela. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6315 and raffled to Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City. [5] The Court of Appeals presented the facts of this case as follows: "Atty. Gerardo Lituanas, a lawyer of the LAPIL (IBP) Negros Oriental, who was also an [e]lection [r]egistrar of the COMELEC, filed the complaint in 1975; Atty. Lituanas was able to present evidence on the following dates: July 10, 1981 First plaintiffs' witness Atilano Ramirez, 73 years old, was presented; July 16, 1981 Continuation of the testimony of Atilano Ramirez; August 24, 1982 Continuation of the testimony of Atilano Ramirez; November 20, 1984 Continuation of the testimony of Atilano Ramirez; February 28, 1984 Direct Examination of 2nd Plaintiffs' witness Ignacio Tomias. Cross-examination was waived. August 21, 1985 Plaintiff Pedro Quilat-Quilat was presented on direct examination. "On December 16, 1986, the Citizen Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) entered its appearance as new [private respondents'] counsel after Atty. Gerardo Lituanas has filed his withdrawal. The subsequent events are as follows: February 23, 1987 The case was set for hearing on April 21, 1987. April 21, 1987 The hearing was reset due to the projected amendment of the complainant to implead Primitiva Torrecampo. June 19, 1987 The third amended complaint was admitted. September 9, 1987 Hearing was postponed at the instance of the defendants [herein petitioners]. October 22, 1987 The hearing was suspended for the reason that the Court would require the [private respondents] to submit a certification from the Bureau of Forest Development that the land involved in this case [was] not a part of the public forest. December 17, 1987 The hearing was postponed at the request of [private respondents'] counsel for the reason that she [would] be attending [a] conference in Cebu City. March 18, 1988 The hearing was aborted due to the fact that the Bureau of Forest Development report ha[d] not yet been finished. July 5, 1988 The hearing [was] reset upon agreement of both counsel. September 15, 1988 The hearing [was] reset upon the Court's instance. December 8, 1988 No hearing was held as the certification from the Bureau of Forest Development [was] being awaited. March 16, 1989 The said certification [was] still being awaited. May 25, 1989 The testimony of [Private Respondent] Pedro Quilat-Quilat [was] suspended after a question was [propounded] that would require him to use reading eyeglasses which he did not have at the moment. December 14, 1989 Hearing [was] reset due to the illness of [private respon