SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233594. November 20, 2017.]
CONCHITA ALFONSO, CARLO DIVINA, AND EBANG BARROGA, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES FRANCISCO SOLETA AND OFELIA DOMINGO SOLETA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 November 2017which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233594 (Conchita Alfonso, Carlo Divina, and Ebang Barroga v. Spouses Francisco Soleta and Ofelia Domingo Soleta)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the April 12, 2017 1 and July 12, 2017 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149662 for failure of petitioners Conchita Alfonso, Carlo Divina, and Ebang Barroga (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying due course and dismissing their Petition for Review for failure to comply with Section 2, in relation to Section 3, and Section 4, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, and for lack of merit.
As the CA correctly ruled, procedural rules must be strictly complied with to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. While the Court, in some instances, allowed a relaxation of the rules, it was done only for the most compelling grounds, 3 none of which exist in this case. In any case, the CA did not err in upholding the January 18, 2016 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, which affirmed the October 13, 2015 Decision 5 of the Municipal Trial Court of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija (MTC) as the Complaint filed by respondents Spouses Francisco Soleta and Ofelia Domingo Soleta (respondents) sufficiently alleged the essential requisites for the MTC to acquire jurisdiction over the forcible entry case which were subsequently proved. In this light, the CA correctly brushed aside petitioners' claim of ownership not only because the sole issue in the forcible entry case is the right of physical or material possession over the subject real property independent of any claim of ownership by the parties involved, 6 but also because their failure to file their Answer in accordance with the procedural rules effectively left the MTC with no option but to render judgment based on respondents' complaint. Finally, petitioners' assertion of ownership over the property through an alleged transfer of rights executed in their favor by respondents' predecessor-in-interest clearly does not involve an agrarian dispute over which the Department of Agrarian Reform exercises jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, JR., J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 93-103. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
2.Id. at 117-118.
3.Barcenas v. Spouses Tomas, 494 Phil. 565, 575 (2005); Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 780, 784 (1996).
4.Rollo, pp. 54-58. Penned by Presiding Judge Eleanor Teodora Marbas Vizcarra.
5.Id. at 52-53. Penned by Presiding Judge Noel J. Buenaventura.
6. See Rivera-Calingasan v. Rivera, 709 Phil. 583, 591 (2013).