SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223120. April 10, 2019.]
LEA M. ALCAZAR, petitioner, vs.ELISA STA. TERESA AND LIBRADA STA. TERESA ORDILLANO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223120 — Lea M. Alcazar versus Elisa Sta. Teresa and Librada Sta. Teresa Ordillano
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated July 30, 2015 and Resolution 2 dated February 26, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 131752, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for failure of petitioner Lea M. Alcazar (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error that warrants the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
After a careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court finds that petitioner failed to provide any cogent argument showing that the CA erred in finding that there was no evidence whatsoever substantiating petitioner's claim that the subject lease was subject to automatic renewal. Such issue is evidently a factual issue and an evidentiary matter that cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Court. 3 Further, petitioner's argument that the Laguna Lake Development Authority has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant case is erroneous. The allegations contained in respondents' Complaint clearly make a case for unlawful detainer, which is undoubtedly within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 22-30. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring.
2.Id. at 32.
3. See Bautista v. Puyat Vinyl Products, Inc., 416 Phil. 305, 309 (2001).