HEIRS OF ANDREA CRISTOBAL vs.

CA
G.R. No. 135959
May 11, 2000
HEIRS OF ANDREA CRISTOBAL, represented by AMADO DE LEON, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ROSARIO
LOPEZ and ALICIA SANTOS, respondents.
PONENTE: Bellosillo
PETITIONERS: Heirs of Andrea Cristobal, represented by Amado De Leon
RESPONDENTS: Rosario Lopez and Alicia Santos
DOCTRINE:
This Court advocates strict adherence to the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises Inc. v. Japson that no motion for
extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial
Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the CA. Such a motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court
as a court of last resort which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. An exception therefore
cannot be made despite the claim that the lapse was due to the illness of petitioners counsel.
FACTS:
In 1975 petitioners Heirs of Andrea Cristobal de Leon, represented by Amado de Leon, filed an application for registration of
their ancestral land covering two 2 parcels with an aggregate area of 72,253 square meters. The location plan for the said
ancestral lands were both surveyed and approved by the Director of Lands in 1914. During the application for registration by
the heirs, respondents Lopez and Santos filed separate oppositions to petitioners application claiming ownership of certain
portions of the ancestral land of the Heirs of Doa Andrea. While LRC Case of the heirs was pending, Santos filed an
application for registration of the portion of land that she claimed to own. This case was then consolidated with the LRC case
filed by the Heirs of Doa Andrea. The RTC decided in favor of the Heirs, and both Lopez and Santos appealed to the
CA who REVERSED the RTC Decision on August 31, 1998.
Petitioners counsel, Atty. Lumen Policarpio, had a secondary brain stroke just the day before the CA decision and was
confined at the Makati Med until September 5 and her office was closed until September 12 th. The decision in favor of the
private respondents was sent by registered mail and received on September 9 by a guard of the building where the office was,
and since the law office was closed, the judgment was forwarded to counsel's residence and was received by her nurse on
September 13, 1998.
Atty. Lumen Policarpio filed an ME (motion for extension) of 30 days from September 25, 1998 to submit a formal MR.
She assumed that she will be granted the 30-day extension, so she filed the MR on October 21, 1998. (Kung hindi ba naman
assuming etong si Ate Lumen.)
However, the CA denied the extension and did not resolve on the MR; hence, the instant petition. Petitioners concede that the
law prohibits the filing of a motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration but plead that the instant case be made
an exception since the failure to meet the prescribed period was due to the medical condition of their counsel and not a
deliberate intent to delay.
ISSUE:
Did the CA err in denying the MOTION FOR EXTENSION of Atty. Lumen Policarpio?
HELD:
NO, it did not err. Under Sec. 2, Rule 9, of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), a party may file a
motion for reconsideration of a decision or resolution within 15 days from notice thereof, WITHOUT any extension.
Petitioners had until September 24 within which to file their MR, but instead of filing the MR, petitioners filed an ME on
September 17, obviously in violation of the mandatory provision prohibiting the filing of a motion for extension of time to
file a motion for reconsideration.
Although petitioners motion was accompanied by a medical certificate, it was not under oath and there was no affidavit of
merit evidencing that the lapse could have been due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. Petitioners were
represented by the Office of Lumen Policarpio AND Associates, and if indeed Atty. Lumen Policarpio was indisposed, an
associate from her law office could have acted in her stead.

This Court advocates strict adherence to the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises Inc. v. Japson that no motion for
extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial
Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the CA. Such a motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court
as a court of last resort which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. An exception therefore
cannot be made despite the claim that the lapse was due to the illness of petitioners counsel.