SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256713. March 9, 2022.]
TRINIDAD BAUTISTA VDA. DE SUAREZ, HEIRS OF FABIAN B. SUAREZ NAMELY: ROWENA SUAREZ AND JHACELLE RHOBIE SUAREZ, PAULINO B. SUAREZ, OTHER SURVIVING HEIRS OF THE LATE FAUSTO B. SUAREZ, PROCESO B. SUAREZ, RAYMUNDO C. SUAREZ, and/or ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, petitioners,vs. SPS. ISIDRO B. SUAREZ AND CRISANTA MORAGA-SUAREZ (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY THEIR HEIRS NAMELY: CHARLES M. SUAREZ, AURELIO M. SUAREZ and BRIAN M. SUAREZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 March 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256713 (Trinidad Bautista Vda. De Suarez, Heirs of Fabian B. Suarez namely: Rowena Suarez and Jhacelle Rhobie Suarez, Paulino B. Suarez, Other Surviving Heirs of the Late Fausto B. Suarez, Proceso B. Suarez, Raymundo C. Suarez, and/or All Persons Claiming Rights under them vs. Sps. Isidro B. Suarez and Crisanta Moraga-Suarez (Deceased) represented by their heirs namely: Charles M. Suarez, Aurelio M. Suarez and Brian M. Suarez). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari (Petition) 1 seeks the reversal of the Decision 2 dated 10 March 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated 11 March 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 112645, which affirmed in toto the Decision 4 dated 26 October 2018 issued by Branch 9, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 628-M-2008.
After a judicious perusal of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the present Petition for failure of Trinidad Bautista Vda. De Suarez, Heirs of Fabian B. Suarez namely: Rowena Suarez and Jhacelle Rhobie Suarez, Paulino B. Suarez, Other Surviving Heirs of the Late Fausto B. Suarez, Proceso B. Suarez, Raymundo C. Suarez, and/or All Persons Claiming Rights under them (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution. It is emphasized that as a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. 5 While there are exceptions to the rule, 6 none obtains in this case. Further, factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive on this Court. 7
However, the amount of the reasonable rentals awarded to Sps. Isidro B. Suarez and Crisanta Moraga-Suarez (Deceased) represented by their heirs namely: Charles M. Suarez, Aurelio M. Suarez and Brian M. Suarez (respondents) does not appear to have basis. The RTC merely granted the amount of rent prayed for by respondents, who presented no basis or evidence for such amount. We have previously held that "while the courts may fix the reasonable amount of rent for the use and occupation of a disputed property, they could not simply rely on their own appreciation of land values without considering any evidence. The reasonable amount of any rent could not be determined by mere judicial notice but by supporting evidence." 8 Accordingly, the award of reasonable rentals must be deleted. CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 10 March 2020 and the Resolution dated 11 March 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 112645 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award of rentals is DELETED.
The Court further resolves to:
1. GRANT petitioners' fist motion for extension and supplemental motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; and
2. INFORM petitioners that they or their authorized representative may personally claim from the Cash Disbursement and Collection Division of this Court the excess payment of the prescribed legal fees in the amount of P470.00 under O.R. No. 0293660 dated 29 June 2021.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., on official business leave; Hernando, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2872 dated 04 March 2022).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 22-59.
2.Id. at 70-82; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Louis P. Acosta of the Sixteenth (16th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 84-90.
4.Id. at 296-328; rendered by Presiding Judge Veronica A. Vicente-De Guzman.
5. Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court.
6. See Unera v. Shin Heung Electro Digital, Inc., G.R. No. 228328, 11 March 2020 [Per J. Zalameda].
7. See Bangis v. Heirs of Adolfo, 687 Phil. 437, 446-447 (2012) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
8.Bunyi v. Factor, 609 Phil. 134, 145 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing].