G.R. No. 203918 - SPOUSES AMADOR C. CAYAGO, JR. AND ERMALINDA B. CAYAGO, VS. SPOUSES EVELITO CANTARA AND SOLEDAD CANTARA.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, ordered the latter, their agents, and persons acting in their behalf to surrender its possession and pay the amount of P500.00 per month as reasonable rent for its use from December 2007 until its actual surrender. [21] The RTC found that Sps. Cantara were able to discharge the burden of proving prior physical possession of the subject land of which they were illegally deprived. It gave probative weight to the notarized Deed of Sale between Sps. Cantara and Asteria which proves that the former have been occupying the subject land since 1993, as corroborated by the sworn statements of the present tenants thereof. On this score, the RTC noted that Sps. Cayago failed to adduce evidence to discredit the validity of the said Deed of Sale. Further, it observed that the MTC overlooked the finding of Engr. Suyot in the Commissioner's Report that Sps. Cantara possess the southern portion of Lot 12224 acquired by purchase since 1993. [22] Finally, the RTC pointed out that the MTC erred in giving consideration and weight to the documentary evidence submitted by Sps. Cayago, which included OCT No. P-7694 and the Tax Declarations in support of their claim, the same not having been formally offered in the proceedings before it. [23] Aggrieved, Sps. Cayago filed a motion for reconsideration [24] on September 14, 2009, [25] which was denied by the RTC in an Order [26] dated July 6, 2010. Sps. Cayago, through counsel, received such order of denial on July 15, 2010. [27] Pursuant to Section 1, [28] Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, Sps. Cayago had fifteen (15) days, or until July 30, 2010 within which to file a petition for review before the CA. On July 29, 2010, [29] or a day before the expiration of the period within which to file said petition, Sps. Cayago filed a motion for extension of time [30] praying for an additional period of fifteen (15) days, or until August 14, 2010, within which to file their petition for review. Since August 14, 2010 fell on a Saturday, Sps. Cayago filed their petition for review [31] with the CA on August 16, 2010. [32] The CA Ruling In a Decision [33] dated April 14, 2011, the CA dismissed the petition outright for having been filed out of time, ruling that motions for extension to file pleadings are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court. In this regard, it pronounced that lawyers should never presume that their motions for extension or postponement will be granted. [34] Moreover, it found that the petition suffered from the following infirmities: (1) the notarial certificate on the Verification did not indicate the province or city where the notary public was commissioned, the serial number of the commission and its office address were likewise not indicated, in violation of Section 2 (b) and (c), Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and (2) there was no explanation as to why personal filing was not done. [35] Dissatisfied, Sps. Cayago filed a motion for reconsideration,