FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244466. March 13, 2019.]
CARLSON VIRAY ALVARO AND ELY VIRAY ARIOLA, REPRESENTED BY HER HUSBAND, ROGELIO G. ARIOLA, petitioners, vs.MARICAR, NATIVIDAD, ELIZABETH, AMALIA, JOHN, AND GERON, ALL SURNAMED CORDOVA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 13, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244466 — Carlson Viray Alvaro and Ely Viray Ariola, represented by her husband, Rogelio G. Ariola, Petitioners, vs. Maricar, Natividad, Elizabeth, Amalia, John, and Geron, all surnamed Cordova, Respondents. — The petitioners' motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days to submit some of the lacking "annexes" marked in the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a judicious review of petitioners' allegations, and in accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioners to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in rendering the assailed Decision 1 and Resolution dated April 6, 2018 and January 28, 2019, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 135540.
In essence, petitioners beseech the Court to set aside the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 35-2253 grounded on lack of jurisdiction.
However, as correctly held by the CA:
With reference to petitioners' attempt to capitalize on the public nature of the property involved herein, case law is clear that the alleged public character of the land in dispute will not divest the Municipal Trial Court [MTC] of its jurisdiction over actions for forcible entry and yes, the RTC, inasmuch as the public character of the land does not preclude inferior courts from exercising jurisdiction over actions to recover and ascertain ownership over property. 2
Moreover, in Villondo v. Quijano, 3 the Court said that even public lands can be the subject of forcible entry cases since ejectment proceedings may involve all kinds of land. The Court, in David v. Cordova, 4 explained that:
Courts must not abdicate their jurisdiction to resolve the issue of physical possession because of the public need to preserve the basic policy behind the summary actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The underlying philosophy behind ejectment suits is to prevent breach of peace and criminal disorder and to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his. The party deprived of possession must not take the law into his own hands. Ejectment proceedings are summary in nature so the authorities can settle speedily actions to recover possession because of the overriding need to quell social disturbances.
Further, the CA correctly observed that petitioners cannot indirectly impugn the decision made by another division in CA-G.R. CV No. 86531 which already attained finality by virtue of G.R. No. 201339. It is elementary that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The instant petition is clearly without merit in fact and in law.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed Decision and Resolution dated April 6, 2018 and January 28, 2019, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 135540.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 68-76. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.
2.Id. at p. 73
3. G.R. No. 173606, 700 Phil. 18-31 (2012).
4. G.R. No. 152992, 502 Phil. 626-650 (2005).