Editha Albor v Court of Appeals, Nerva Macasil joined by her husband Rudy Macasil and Norma Beluso,

joined by her husband Noli Beluso

Date: Jan 17 2018

Ponente: J Martires

Facts:
• This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeks to reverse the decision and resolution of the CA which
dismissed Editha’s appeal from the DARAB for having been filed out of time
• Editha was the agricultural lessee of 1.6 hectare Riceland and 1.5 hectare sugarland portion of lot
2429 at Brgy Dinginan Roxas City
• Lot was covered by TCT under Rosario Andrada and Editha had been paying rent to the Heirs of
Rosario
• Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Roxas city informed Editha that R here in this case had
purchased lot from the heirs of Rosario but no deed of sale shown to Editha
• Editha was able to obtain from the Clerk of Court of RTC in Roxas City a document entitled Extra-
Judicial Settlement with Deed of Sale purportedly executed by the heirs of Rosario
o Appears that on June 6 1997 the heirs of Rosarion adjudicated unto themselves lot 2429 and
thereupon sold the same to R for 600k pesos
• Editha filed a complaint for redemption of landholding and damages before the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
o Alleged that she had a right to redeem based on Sec 12 RA 3844 as amended by RA 6389,
she had the right to redeem the lot within 180days from notice in writing of sale to be served
by the vendees on all lessees affected upon registration and on Department of Agrarian
Reform upon registration of the sale
o Since it has not been registered in the register of deeds, the 180 day period has not yet
started
o Thus she prays that judgment be declared that she is entitled to redeem the lot for 60k pesos
• R asserted that prior to actual sale, Editha knew that it was 600k and not 60k which was misleading
o Also, it was conferred to Editha before sale her right of pre-emption and lot was offered to
her at 600k but she did not exercise her right to buy and so the sale was then consummated
to R
o R also claim that heirs of Rosario executed a notice in Mar 16 1998 that if Editha could still
repurchase the property from R
o R sent a written complaint for payment of rentals but instead of paying Editha filed a
complaint
• PARAD found Editha was not properly notified of the sale as it failed to indicate the terms and
particulars of the sale
o Right of redemption did not prescribe for want of valid written notice
o Although Editha’s complaint was dismissed as only 216k was consigned for redemption
o Citing jurisprudence(Di sinabi kung ano) that if consigned not full for redemption, it means
ineffectual!
• Editha filed an appeal before DARAB on Nov 10 2008 and his counsel Atty Fredcindo received a
copy on Oct 8 2008 affirming in toto the PARAD’s ruling
• Editha filed before CA a motion for extention to file Rule 43 petition for review praying additional 15
days from nov 25 to dec 10 2008
• Dec 3 2008 Atty fredcinto filed a motion to withdraw as counsel but dated Nov 23 2008 as Editha
engaged the services of another counsel and Editha confirmed this
• On Dec 9 2008, Atty Ferdinand filed with CA a notice of appearance and at the same time move
for extension of 30 days from Dec 10 2008 to Jan 9 2009 which to file the petition for review
o On the basis of heavy workload and need more time to study the case
• Editha’s petition for review was filed Jan 5 2009
• CA DISMISSED
o it may have granted the 15 day extension but not the 30 additional as it was devoid of
authority to grant a second motion for extension
• Editha filed MR but denied based on
• Sec 4 Rule 43
Section 4. Period of appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice
of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date ofits last publication,
ifpublication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new


trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or
agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper
motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the
reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15)
days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted
except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.

• Editha files before SC Rule 65

ISSUE: WON FILED OUT OF TIME (YES)

HELD

• Editha availed the wrong mode of appeal in bringing this case before this Court
o Proper remedy was Rule 45 as provided in the rules that decisions, final orders, or resolutions
of the CA in any case, regardless of the natire of the action or proceedings involved, may be
appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which in essence is a continuation of the
appellate process over the original case
o Rule 65 is a lmited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse.
o It is an independent action that lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
o Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in
the findings or conclusions of the lower court
o As long as the court a quo acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its dicretion will
amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a
petition for review under Rule 45
• As Applied
o When Editha assailed the resolution disposed of Editha’s appeal in a manner that left nothing
more to be done by the CA with respect to the said appeal
o Thus, Rule 45 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
o Editha received Feb 28 2011 resolution of her MR before CA
o Under the rules, she had until Mar 15 to file a petition for review but instead let the period
lapse and file a petition for certiorari
o Certiorari cannot be a substitute on appeal, where the remedy was available but was lost
through fault or negligence
o Where the rules prescribe a particular remedy for the vindication of rights, such remedy
should be availed of. Adoption of an improper remedy already warrants outright dismissal of
this petition
• Even if the Court looks beyond Editha’s misstep, her petition must fail
o Editha argues that sec 4 of Rule 43 admits of exception to the GR when there are compelling
reasons
o She argues that her compelling reason is her first Atty withdrew on Dec 3 2008 and it was only
on Dec 9 which she hired a new Atty that needed to study the case as being new to the
picture
o The new atty could not be expected to finish the petition for review just 1 day before the
expiration of the 15 day extension, which justifies a second motion for ext
• Concept
o Doctrinally entrenched that the right to appeal is a staturory right and the one who seeks to
avail of that right must comply with the statute or rules
o The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the
law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensible interdictions against
needless delays
o The perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only
mandatory but jurisdictional as well
§ Failure to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the ROC unavoidably
renders the judgment final as to preclude the appellate court from acquiring the
jurisdiction to review the judgment
§ It is in order to promote an orderly discharge of judicial business
§ In the absence of higly exceptional circumstances warranting their relaxation, the
statutes or rules should remain inviolable


§ The provision under Rule 43 sec 4 is straightforward
• First motion is discretionary upon the court
• Second motion must comply with 2 condition
o Compelling reason
o No such case shall such extension exceed 15 days
• As Applied
o It can be seen that it was Editha’s decision to change lawyers similar to Sps Dycoco case
o There is no one to blame but herself by putting herself in this predicament]
o In Naguit v San Miguel, the Court held that workload and resignation of the lawyer handling
the case are insufficient reasons to justify the relaxation of the procedural rules
o It is the duty of Petitioner to monitor the status of his case and not simply rely on his former
lawyer whom he already knew to be unable to attend to his duties as counsel
o Even if the withdrawal of first counsel is “sudden” Editha had 7 days remaining of the 15 days
but she hired a new lawyer 1 day before the 15 days
• EVEN on the merits no leg to stand
• The redemption price Editha consigned falls short of the requirement of the law, leaving the Court
with no choice but to rule against her
AFFIRMED