SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236696. April 16, 2018.]
ANITA MAGDALUYO VDA. DE TUASON, AS REPRESENTED BY JOSE TUASON, JR., petitioner, vs.ESTATE OF THE LATE GREGORIO VIAR/HEIRESS VIOLETA VIAR REYES, AS REPRESENTED BY JAIME VIAR REYES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 April 2018which reads as follows: SaCIDT
"G.R. No. 236696 (Anita Magdaluyo Vda. de Tuason, as represented by Jose Tuason, Jr. v. Estate of the late Gregorio Viar/Heiress Violeta Viar Reyes, as represented by Jaime Viar Reyes)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the July 25, 2017 Decision 1 and January 16, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 106801 for failure of petitioner Anita Magdaluyo Vda. de Tuason, as represented by Jose Tuason, Jr. (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding that the Estate of the late Gregorio Viar/Heiress Violeta Viar Reyes, as represented by Jaime Viar Reyes (respondents) have a valid and lawful title to the subject property.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents sufficiently discharged the burden of showing their title, given that: (a) they presented Tax Declaration No. 3399 under the name of their predecessor and have been in actual possession of the subject property; 3 and (b) they proved the absence of any conveyance of the property to petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest. On the other hand, petitioners failed to substantiate the existence of the sale from which they claim their title or that they are in actual possession thereof. Notably, absent any of the recognized exceptions, 4 the Court is proscribed to review the factual issues raised by petitioners in this case which are considered binding and conclusive upon this Court. 5
Further, the failure of petitioners to attach the material portions of the record which should accompany the petition, such as certified copies of the judgment or final order or resolution of the Regional Trial Court, is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the present petition. 6
Finally, the Court notes that the instant petition was belatedly filed, considering that it was filed only on March 26, 2018, or beyond the extension period given by the Court. 7
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 29-A-42. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla and Renato C. Francisco concurring.
2.Id. at 44-45.
3. Tax declarations coupled with proof of actual possession constitute "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence of a claim of ownership. (See Republic v. Metro Index, 690 Phil. 31, 40 [2012]; citation omitted.)
4.Cirtek Employees Labor Union Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, 655 Phil. 784, 789 (2011).
5.Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc., 511 Phil. 279, 287 (2005).
6. Pertinent provision of Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding x x x the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. x x x
7. Due date of filing the petition is on March 9, 2018, with thirty (30) days extension. Second (2nd) motion for extension to file the petition was denied by the Court.