G.R. No. 215599 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence filed by the defendant, Wellington Velasco through counsels is hereby GRANTED and the above-entitled case is hereby ordered DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence and that the action filed is not the proper remedy available to the plaintiffs based on the facts and circumstances as presented which this Court believes should have been one for action for reversion which nevertheless may only be initiated by the Solicitor General as mandated by law. Hence, [the petitioner filed an appeal with the CA assailing the Order dated November 26, 2009 issued by the RTC dismissing their Complaint.] [8] (Italics supplied) The Ruling of the CA In its Decision dated August 19, 2013, the CA dismissed the petitioners Heirs of Francisco's appeal for lack of merit. As claimed by the petitioners Heirs of Francisco, they received a copy of the CA's Decision dated August 19, 2013 on September 30, 2013. The petitioners Heirs of Francisco admit that they only had until October 16, 2013 [9] to file a Motion for Reconsideration. [10] The petitioners Heirs of Francisco maintain that they were able to serve and file their Motion for Reconsideration dated October 15, 2013 via courier service on October 16, 2013. [11] However, in the assailed Resolution, the CA found that petitioners Heirs of Francisco's Motion for Reconsideration was filed only on December 6, 2013 . [12] Hence, the CA denied outright the petitioners Heirs of Francisco's Motion for Reconsideration, "considering that the period to file a Motion for Reconsideration is not extendible." [13] Consequently, the CA directed the Division Clerk of Court to issue "an Entry of Judgment for the above entitled case, pursuant to to (sic) Section 3(b), Rule IV and Section 1, Rule VII, of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended, considering that the August 19, 2013 Decision has attained finality for lack of a timely filed Motion for Reconsideration or a petition before the Supreme Court." [14] Hence, the instant Petition. On April 28, 2015, the private respondents filed their Comment [15] to the Petition. On February 29, 2016, the private respondents filed a Manifestation and Motion to Deny Petition. [16] On April 19, 2016, the Court issued a Resolution [17] requiring the petitioners Heirs of Francisco to file a Reply to the private respondents' Manifestation and Motion to Deny Petition within ten (10) days from notice. The records reveal that the petitioners Heirs of Francisco failed to file a Reply as required by the Court. Issue In the instant Petition, the petitioners Heirs of Francisco raise a singular issue to be resolved by the Court: whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution denying outright the petitioners Heirs of Francisco's Motion for Reconsideration and ordering Entry of Judgment due to the failure of petitioners Heirs of Francisco to timely file a Motion for Reconsideratio