SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242613. January 7, 2019.]
DR. ELIZABETH P. CUENCA-TIMBOL, petitioner,vs. DR. JULIET P. CUENCA-PONCE, KAREN JOIE B. CUENCA, AND JOSEPH P. CUENCA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 January 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242613 (Dr. Elizabeth P. Cuenca-Timbol v. Dr. Juliet P. Cuenca-Ponce, Karen Joie B. Cuenca, and Joseph P. Cuenca)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 26, 2018 Decision 2 and the September 6, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 07514-MIN for failure of petitioner Dr. Elizabeth P. Cuenca-Timbol (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in ruling that respondents Dr. Juliet P. Cuenca-Ponce, Karen Joie B. Cuenca, and Joseph P. Cuenca (respondents) can validly evict her from their respective shares in the subject property through the instant unlawful detainer suit.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the requirements 4 for an unlawful detainer case to prosper are present in this case, considering that: (a) petitioner and respondents validly partitioned the subject property, and therefore acquired distinct shares therein; 5 (b) by virtue of an agreement to sell, 6 petitioner took possession of respondents' respective shares in the property; 7 (c) petitioner failed to pay the amount stipulated in the agreement, resulting in its termination; 8 (d) despite such termination, she remained in possession of the subject property; 9 and (e) the unlawful detainer complaint was filed within one (1) year from the last demand. 10
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-27.
2.Id. at 116-135. Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3.Id. at 143-145.
4. "A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property, and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one (1) year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. (Fairland Knitcraft Corporation v. Po, 779 Phil. 612, 624 [2016].)
5. See rollo, pp. 126-127.
6. See "Agreement" dated July 25, 2012; id. at 50-51.
7. See id. at 132.
8. See id.
9. See id.
10. See id. at 132-133.