This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| This provision is mandatory, considering the nature of an ejectment case as we have explained in Teroña v. Hon. Antonio de Sagun.[15] We quote below the pertinent portion of that Decision: The strict adherence to the reglementary period prescribed by the RSP [Rules on Summary Procedure] is due to the essence and purpose of these rules. The law looks with compassion upon a party who has been illegally dispossessed of his property. Due to the urgency presented by this situation, the RSP provides for an expeditious and inexpensive means of reinstating the rightful possessor to the enjoyment of the subject property. This fulfills the need to resolve the ejectment case quickly. | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Firstly, the Court agrees with the CA that petitioners' Position Paper and the affidavits of its witnesses should not have been considered by the trial courts since these were filed beyond the 10-day reglementary period required under Section 10, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Section 9 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.[13] Petitioners do not dispute the appellate court's finding that they submitted their position paper and affidavits more than three months after the deadline set by the abovementioned rules. In this regard, this Court, in Teraña v. De Sagun,[14] held as follows: x x x By its express terms, the purpose of the RSP [Revised Rule on Summary Procedure] is to "achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination" of the cases they cover, among them, forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. To achieve this objective, the RSP expressly prohibit[s] certain motions and pleadings that could cause delay, among them, a motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper. If the extension for the filing of these submissions cannot be allowed, we believe it illogical and incongruous to admit a pleading that is already filed late. Effectively, we would then allow indirectly what we prohibit to be done directly. It is for this reason that in Don Tino Realty Development Corporation v. Florentino [G.R. No. 134222, September 10, 1999, 314 SCRA 197], albeit on the issue of late filing of an answer in a summary proceeding, we stated that "[t]o admit a late answer is to put a premium on dilatory measures, the very mischief that the rules seek to redress." | |||||