SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246297. July 1, 2019.]
AMADO DIZON, TERESITA D. YABUT, AND REGALADO DIZON, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, TERESITA D. YABUT, petitioners, vs.AURORA DIZON, SPOUSES PACITA DIZON DE LEON AND NORBERTO DE LEON, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ANGELES CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246297 (Amado Dizon, Teresita D. Yabut, and Regalado Dizon, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, Teresita D. Yabut v. Aurora Dizon, Spouses Pacita Dizon De Leon and Norberto De Leon, and the Register of Deeds of Angeles City)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the July 26, 2018 Decision 2 and the March 12, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 109429 for failure of petitioners Amado Dizon, Teresita D. Yabut, and Regalado Dizon, represented by their attorney-in-fact, Teresita D. Yabut (petitioners), to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of their complaint 4 for annulment/cancellation of title, reconveyance, and damages against respondents Aurora Dizon (Aurora), Spouses Pacita Dizon de Leon and Norberto de Leon, and the Register of Deeds of Angeles City (collectively, respondents) involving a 979-square meter property situated in Quezon Drive, Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga (subject property). SDAaTC
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that Aurora was merely a trustee of the subject property, considering that: (a) the Deed of Transfer of a Parcel of Land 5 failed to indicate the existence of trust relationship between Aurora and her siblings; 6 and (b) Aurora was the absolute owner of the subject property 7 prior to its sale in 2006 to spouses Pacita Dizon de Leon and Norberto de Leon, without any showing that said sale transaction was contested in court. 8 It is settled that the burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party asserting its existence, and such proof must clearly and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and its elements, 9 which were not shown in this case. AaCTcI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-26.
2.Id. at 33-42. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring.
3.Id. at 31-32.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. Dated April 1, 1989. Rollo, p. 83.
6. See id. at 37-39.
7. As evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269601-R issued in Aurora's name; id. at 79-82.
8. See id. at 40-41.
9. See Logrosa v. Azales, G.R. No. 217611, March 27, 2019, citing Oco v. Limbaring, 516 Phil. 691, 703 (2006).