G.R. NO. 160214 - GAUDENCIA NAVARRO VDA. DE TAROMA, BENEDICTO N. TAROMA, ANGELINA T. GUARDION, CONSOLACION T. CABUTE, OFELIA N. TAROMA AND NOEL N. TAROMA, VS. SPS. FELINO N. TAROMA AND LYDIA MARTINEZ, SPS. JOSE N. TAROMA AND IMELDA NOVERO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF TARLAC

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, let this case be DISMISSED. With costs against plaintiffs. [1] Petitioners appealed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paniqui, Tarlac. On 26 March 2002, the RTC affirmed the decision of the MCTC, Presiding Judge Cesar M. Sotero disposing that: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED. [2] A copy of the RTC decision was received by petitioners, thru counsel, on 27 March 2002. A motion for extension of time to file petition for review was thereafter filed. On 24 April 2002, within the period of extension, petitioners, through their counsel Atty. Leonel L. Yasay, filed a Petition for Review. [3] In a Resolution dated 30 May 2002, the Court of Appeals directed private respondents to file their comment to the petition without necessarily giving due course thereto. [4] On 13 June 2002, petitioners, through collaborating counsel, Atty. Esmeraldo U. Guloy, filed an "Urgent Motion Ex-Parte" to amend the petition attaching therewith the said Amended Petition. [5] On 12 July 2002, private respondents filed their Comment to the original petition. [6] In a Resolution dated 06 August 2002, the Court of Appeals, among other things, required counsel for private respondents to comment on the Amended Petition. [7] Private respondents filed their comment to the amended petition on 06 September 2002. [8] On 27 February 2003, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision, [9] the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed 26 March 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 556 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs. [10] A copy of the decision was received by petitioners, through their counsels, on 06 March 2003. On 19 March 2003, they filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision before the Court of Appeals essentially arguing that the decision was invalid as it was based on the original petition for review and not on the amended petition filed soon thereafter. [11] The next day, or on 20 March 2003, petitioners filed before the Supreme Court a "Petition (Ex-Abundante Cautela)" under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the very same decision under reconsideration in the Court of Appeals. [12] This case was docketed as G.R. No. 157393 and was raffled to the First Division of this Court. On 28 April 2003, the First Division resolved to deny the petition for failure to submit proof of authority to sign the verification and certification on non-forum shopping. [13] Petitioners moved for reconsideration on 03 June 2003. [14] On 25 June 2003, the petition was denied with finality. [15] Refusing to accept the Court's ruling, petitioners filed on 29 July 2003 a "Motion for Referral of the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc in the Interest of Justice and for the Maintenance of the Rule of Law." [16] Among the reasons cited by petitioners for their request was the pendency of th