SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224969. August 10, 2016.]
REBECCA TIONGCO ALFONSO-ANCHETA, petitioner, vs. GERARDO CORDERO BRUAL REP. BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EVARISTO JUAN BRUAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224969 — Rebecca Tiongco Alfonso-Ancheta vs. Gerardo Cordero Brual rep. by his Attorney-in-Fact Evaristo Juan Brual
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 144316.
Petitioner contends that the directives of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41 (RTC) for her to surrender Transfer Certificate of Title No. 002-2015000731 and for said title to be placed under custodial legis are in the nature of a writ of replevin, which respondent did not avail of. Thus, the RTC cannot grant such relief in respondent's favor. She further insists that the CA prematurely decided the merits of the main case as it purportedly ruled that respondent had validly revoked petitioner's agency with him (respondent).
Petitioner's contentions are untenable.
As properly held by the RTC and the CA, the order to deposit the aforesaid title is merely provisional in nature designed to protect and preserve the rights of the parties while the main action is being heard. It does not amount to any adjudication on the merits of the main case. Moreover, as correctly stated by the RTC in its Order dated November 10, 2015, Sections 5 1 and 6 2 of Rule 135 of the Rules of Court provide for the inherent power of the court to issue such orders conformable to law and justice and to adopt means as necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect. 3 Hence, the CA did not err in holding that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioner to deposit with the court the subject title.
Moreover, the Court notes that the CA Decision did not rule on the alleged revocation of petitioner's agency with respondent as the CA even stressed that it is the RTC's judgment on the case pending before it that will ultimately determine the rights and obligations of the parties. 4
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed June 10, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 144316.
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave; Mendoza, J., on official leave from August 4-10, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)." ITAaHc
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 5. Inherent powers of courts. — Every court shall have power:
xxx xxx xxx
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice[.]
2. Section 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. — When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules.
3. Go vs. Go, 616 Phil. 740, 749-750 (2009).
4. Rollo, p. 46.