SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 255811 and 255820. June 28, 2021.]
JOSELINE TIBAWEN DAVID, petitioner, vs.SPOUSES SALVADOR AND GEORGINA TIBAWEN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 June 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. Nos. 255811 and 255820 (Joseline Tibawen David v. Spouses Salvador and Georgina Tibawen). — After a judicious study of this case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated June 30, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated January 18, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 154101 and 154720, for failure of petitioner Joseline Tibawen David (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in: (a) reversing, annulling, and setting aside the Decision 4 dated July 24, 2017, the Orders dated November 28, 2017 5 and February 20, 2018, and the Writ of Execution 6 dated February 26, 2018 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City (RTC), Branch 7 in Special Civil Action Case No. 8497-R; and (b) dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer and damages filed by petitioner against respondents Spouses Salvador and Georgina Tibawen (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, the Decision 7 dated July 10, 2017 of the RTC Branch 6 in the quieting of title case nullifying petitioner's title to the subject land had brought about a material change in the standing of the parties, which rendered the execution of the Decision dated July 24, 2017 of the RTC Branch 7 in the unlawful detainer case adjudging possession to her as inequitable. Petitioner never appealed the decision in the quieting of title case, which became final and executory with the withdrawal of respondents' appeal. Considering that petitioner's claim of possession is anchored on her title, which had been nullified in a final decision, her right to possession had thus become inconclusive. Notably, the nullification of her title came in the wake of a finding that the transfer of title in her name circumvented the law disqualifying landed individuals like her from acquiring public lands in Baguio City through miscellaneous sales application.
Moreover, whether or not petitioner has the better right of possession over the subject land is a factual issue outside the purview of Rule 45. 8
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-34.
2.Id. at 44-59. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3.Id. at 40-42.
4.Id. at 66-71. Penned by Presiding Judge Mona Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora.
5.Id. at 93-94.
6.Id. at 72-73.
7.Id. at 74-92. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Cecilia Corazon S. Dulay-Archog.
8. See Guanga v. Dela Cruz, 519 Phil. 764, 772 (2006).