4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly household appliances, and groceries in the property, and even having a caretaker occupy the premises.[27] Petitioners also argued that the partial payments should be forfeited in their favor as reasonable rentals for their inability to derive income from the property. Petitioners admitted that this argument on reasonable rentals was raised for the first time on appeal, but claimed exception since issues presenting matters of public policy may be considered for the first time on appeal. According to petitioners, respondents stand to be unjustly enriched at petitioners' expense, as respondents have enjoyed possession of the housing unit without having to pay any rent.[28] This Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being an improper remedy, and for its failure to establish any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. [29] Petitioners moved for reconsideration,[30] maintaining that a party's resort to a wrong remedy may be liberally construed in pursuit of substantial justice, and in view of the merits of their arguments. They insist that Olivarez allows them to retain respondents' partial payments since possession had been turned over to the latter pending transfer of title. Petitioners also argue that respondents' failure to actually reside within the housing unit does not detract from their full possession or occupation of the premises. [31] On January 25, 2017, this Court issued a Resolution granting the Motion for Reconsideration, reinstating the Petition for Certiorari and requiring the Norman Spouses to file a comment.[32] Respondents filed their Comment on April 3, 2017,[33] arguing that a petition for certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. They assert that the petition was filed beyond the 15-day period for filing a petition for review, rendering the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals final. Respondents also point out that the petition did not raise any errors of jurisdiction, but instead raised errors of law.[34] Petitioners allegedly failed to discharge the burden of presenting "extraordinary circumstances which may justify a deviation from the rules on timely filing of appeals,"[35] thus, precluding a relaxation of procedural rules. In any event, respondents argue that petitioners misconstrued the ruling in Olivarez. According to respondents, Olivarez allowed the sellers to retain the prospective buyer's partial payments because the latter "illegally retained possession of the property for fourteen (14) long years and illegally withheld payments of the purchase price."[36] The illegal possession and withholding of payment, as well as the subsequent sale of the property without notice to the buyer, were allegedly the "primary considerations" for allowing retention of the partial payments. Without these circumstances, Olivarez was allegedly inapplicable.[37] On May 3, 2017, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply to respondents' Comment, with their Reply attached.[38] The Motion was granted, and the Reply was noted in a subsequent Resolution.[39] Petitioners argue in their Reply that the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66239 4/14