SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237192. April 23, 2018.]
ANITA C. BUCE, petitioner, vs.ROMEO MACAPAGAL, MARRIED TO NORMA MACAPAGAL, REPRESENTED BY FILIPINAS ANTONIO y MACAPAGAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 April 2018which reads as follows: SDAaTC
"G.R. No. 237192 (Anita C. Buce v. Romeo Macapagal, married to Norma Macapagal, represented by Filipinas Antonio y Macapagal)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the October 27, 2017 and February 5, 2018 Resolutions 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152600 for failure of petitioner Anita C. Buce (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying the motion for demolition of the building post and the hanging portions (3rd and 4th floors) thereof situated at 1951 E. Int. Sampaguita Street, Pandacan, Manila.
As correctly ruled by the CA: (a) the outright removal or demolition of the building post as well as the 3rd and 4th floors thereof would cause the partial or total collapse of the building that would endanger the safety of its occupants, and the neighboring houses, taking into account the recommendation of the Geodetic Engineer of Manila; and (b) the restoration of the 3-meter alley from unnecessary obstructions already served the needs of the dominant estate. In this relation, the court a quo did not err nor commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to implement the Writ of Demolition. It is settled that grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law, 2 which do not obtain in this case.
Moreover, well-established is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and, save for certain exceptions none of which are obtaining in this case, will not be reviewed on appeal. 3
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 27-43 and 46, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
2.Social Justice Society Officers v. Lim, 748 Phil. 25, 92-93 (2014).
3.Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citations omitted.