RODOLFO B. SOQUE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SULPICIO LIBUTON, RESPONDENTS.

The decision of the Court of Appeals in Libuton
vs. Soque, CA-G.R. No. SP-11252-CAR, January 13, 1981, an agrarian case, was served on January 22, 1981 upon the counsel for
the landowner, Rodolfo B. Soque.

Eighteen days thereafter or on February 9, Soque filed a motion
for reconsideration.  That motion was not
acted upon because, as stated by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of February 12, 1981, section 18 of
Presidential Decree No. 946 does not allow a motion for rehearing or
reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals in agrarian cases.

On March 17, 1981,
the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals entered judgment in the said case on
the assumption that the decision became final and executory on February 7, 1981,
sixteen days after the service thereof on Soque, the defeated party.  The record was remanded on March 20, 1981 to the Agrarian
Court in Bacolod
City.

The entry of judgment is erroneous because the judgment did not
become final on February 7.  It became
final on February 22 or after thirty days from notice to Soque’s counsel.  Section 18 gives Soque a “non-extendible
period of thirty (30) days” from notice of the decision within which to
file an appeal to this Court by means of a petition for review on certiorari.

In ordinary cases or non-agrarian cases, the reglementary period
for appealing to this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals is fifteen
days.  So, if there is no appeal within
that period, the judgment becomes final on the sixteenth day.  In agrarian cases, the Court of Appeals
should enter judgment on the thirty-first day or thereafter, that is, after the
expiration of the thirty-day period within which to appeal to this Court and no
appeal is interposed.

In the instant case, Soque mailed to this Court on March 19, 1981 an urgent motion for
extension of time within which to file a petition for review.  He inaccurately alleged that his counsel
received on March 10 a copy of the Appellate Court’s resolution of February 12,
“denying” his motion for reconsideration.

His motion was not denied. 
It was simply “noted” because that motion was out of
order.  It was not authorized by section
18.

This Court in its resolution of June 5, 1981 erroneously granted Soque an extension of
thirty days from March 15 within which to file his petition for review on certiorari.  The petition was mailed on April 14, 1981.

We hold that the petition should be dismissed because it was
filed out of time.  It should have been
filed within the non-extendible period of thirty days from January 22, when
Soque was served with a copy of the decision, or on or before February 21.

The thirty-day extension was granted to Soque through
oversight.  The resolution granting it is
hereby set aside.  He was not entitled to
that extension.

As held in Caparas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 56772-84, July 9, 1981 (thirteen cases), the
provision of section 18 that the thirty-day period is non-extendible is peremptory or mandatory in character.  The obvious intent of the lawmaker is to
avoid delays in the disposition of agra­rian cases.  Dura lex, sed lex.

That intention is evident in another provision of section 18,
directing that the complete records of the Agrarian
Court should be forwarded to the Court of Appeals
“within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a
notice of appeal”.

WHEREFORE, the petition in this case is dismissed.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., on leave.