SEVENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 63469. March 16, 2001.]
HEIRS OF JOSUE POSADAS represented by JEOFFREY P. POSADAS, petitioners, vs. FIDEL DE ASIS, SR., The Hon. PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 30, ILOILO CITY, the EX-OFICIO PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, RTC, ILOILO CITY and the MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR, LEMERY, ILOILO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BARCELONA, J p:
This is a petition for the annulment of the Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 30, acting as a Special Agrarian Court, in CAR Case No. 15741.
Rollo shows that on May 24, 1984, private respondent Fidel de Asis, Sr. filed a Complaint for ejectment against Josue Posadas, now represented by his surviving spouse and children. Subject of the complaint is a parcel of land with an area of 10.1524 hectares, situated at Brgy. Tuguis, Lemery, Iloilo. The complaint contained the allegations, inter alia, that: (1) private respondent is the lawful owner of the property in dispute, while the deceased Posadas is the agricultural tenant thereof, (2) Posadas' failure to pay the rentals due thereon, despite demands, justifies his ejectment from the property (pp. 33-34, Rollo).
Posadas filed his Answer, denying the allegations, and further claiming, among others, that his failure to pay the rent was due to causes beyond his control (p. 35, Rollo).
On May 28, 1996, respondent Court, through its Assisting Judge, rendered the judgment sought to be annulled, which contains the dispositive portion, viz.:
"WHEREFORE, all of the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring defendant Josue Posadas as the bonafide tenant of the landholding with an area of eight (8) and one-half (8 ½) (sic) hectares and is entitled to remain in the peaceful possession and cultivation thereof;
2. Ordering defendant Josue Posadas to pay plaintiff sixty (60) cavans of palay rental representing the unpaid annual rentals for crop year 1984-85 and the succeeding unpaid rentals less whatever may have been paid to the plaintiff during the pendency of the case;
3. Dismissing the claim of the plaintiff for damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses for lack of merit;
4. Dismissing the counterclaim of the defendant for damages and litigation expenses also for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (pp. 59-60, Rollo)
Appeal therefrom was perfected to this Court but as admitted by petitioners, the same was dismissed for failure to pay the necessary docket fees (p. 26, Rollo). Hence, Entry of Judgment was made by the Court on January 24, 1998 (p. 26, Rollo).
On September 3, 1999, Josue Posadas died (p. 31, Rollo). aIAcCH
On August 24, 2000, private respondent filed a motion for the execution of the judgment rendered by respondent Court, which was granted per Order dated September 18, 2000 (p. 62, Rollo). Thus, on October 26, 2000, the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff and Clerk of Court issued a writ of execution to implement said judgment (p. 62, Rollo).
Thereafter, per inquiries made by petitioners, the Regional Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) declared that the property in dispute falls within the Timberland Block Project No. 60 per LC Map No. 2127 and FOA No. 4-645 dated August 5, 19957 (pp. 64 and 65, Rollo).
Hence, petitioner filed the present action contending that the Decision sought to be annulled is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
Without, however, delving into the merits of this case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the same.
Rule 47, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that:
"This rule shall govern the annulment of the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner." (Emphasis Ours)
As admitted by petitioners, the remedy of appeal from the judgment sought to be annulled was already availed of when the deceased Josue Posadas filed and timely perfected an appeal to this Court (p. 26, Rollo). However, the same was dismissed for failure to pay docket fees (p. 62, Rollo). Contrary therefore to the aforequoted provision of law, the remedy of ordinary appeal was rendered unavailable to the late Josue Posadas through his own fault, for failing to pay the required docket fees. As a consequence thereof, petitioners cannot now avail of the present remedy.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for annulment of judgment is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Cosico and Santos, JJ ., concur.