THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 30 2002.

G.R. No. 136801 (Emma Sentimar vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Quezon City and Spouses Lodovico and Carmencita Villarez.)

In a Resolution dated February 22, 1999, we required respondents to comment on the instant petition for mandamus. Only the Solicitor General, representing public respondent DARAB, filed the required comment.

The copy of our Resolution of February 22, 1999, addressed to private respondent spouses Villarez, was returned unserved with the postmaster’s notation “RTS UNCLAIMED”. Thus, in a Resolution dated November 22, 1999, we required petitioner to inform this Court of the new and correct address of private respondents. In compliance with this Resolution, petitioner submitted the same address of private respondents appearing in the records of this case.

Again, on October 11, 2000, we issued another Resolution requiring petitioner to inform this Court of the complete and correct address of private respondents. But petitioner submitted the same address.

On February 19, 2001, this Court issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for failure of petitioner’s counsel to furnish this Court of private respondents’ correct address.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that private respondents are actually and presently residing at Purok Kawayanan, Barangay Taloc, Bago City, as evidenced by the Certification of Barangay Captain Alberto B. Claro. However, they refused to claim any communication sent to them. She thus prayed that this Court’s notices to private respondents be sent through Barangay Captain Alberto B. Claro, Barangay Taloc, Bago City.

We granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and ordered that a copy of our Resolution of February 22, 1999 be sent to private respondents through Barangay Captain Alberto B. Claro of Barangay Taloc, Bago City. But our Resolution was returned to this Court with the postmaster’s notation “Return to sender, Reason: Unclaimed.”

WHEREFORE, it appearing that our Resolution requiring private respondents to comment on the petition can no longer be served upon them, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court