FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 215050 & 215082. March 9, 2015.]
GO KE CHONG, JR., petitioner, vs. MARIANO CHAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 9, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 215050 & 215082 (Go Ke Chong, Jr. v. Mariano Chan). — The petitioner's motions for extension within which to file the petitions for review on certiorari are GRANTED counted from the expiration of the reglementary period; and G.R. Nos. 215050 and 215082 are hereby CONSOLIDATED and G.R. No. 215082 is REFERRED to the Member-in-Charge of the lower-numbered case, G.R. No. 215050.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 21, 2014 Decision 1 and October 22, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87803 and CA-G.R. SP No. 117370 for failure of Go Ke Chong, Jr. (petitioner) to show any reversible error committed by the CA in consolidating the cases before it and adjudging Mariano Chan (respondent) as the owner of the subject lot.
At the outset, the Court, similar to the CA, finds the consolidation of the cases to be proper as they involve the same parties and affect closely related subject matters.
On the merits, the Court concurs with the CA that respondent was able to prove by preponderance of evidence his ownership over the subject lot which (a) warrants the cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 93-004-52077 in the name of petitioner; and (b) renders moot the latter's forcible entry complaint in Civil Case No. 3720 hinged on his erroneous claim of ownership over the same property. Verily, factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court, as that of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 29 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 6453, are entitled to great weight and respect. Thus, finding no cogent reason to deviate from the same, and considering too that the issues raised herein are factual in nature and, hence, beyond the pale of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), the instant petitions are, perforce, denied. AHTICD
Besides, petitioner failed to attach such material portions of the record in support of the petition 3 pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 215050), pp. 35-54. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon with Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
2. Id. at 55-61.
3. Among others, the RTC Order dated November 15, 2005 and the Decision dated December 9, 2005 in Civil Case No. 6453; the Decision dated February 4, 2009 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, San Fernando City, La Union, in Civil Case No. 3720; the RTC Decision dated September 22, 2010 in Civil Case No. 7507; the petitions in CA-G.R. CV No. 87803 and CA-G.R. SP No. 117370; the parties' respective tax declarations.