SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224819. September 14, 2016.]
DANILO GRANADA, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF SALOME OCAMPO FULLON: IDERLINA FULLON BERNABE, WILFREDO FULLON, DAN HOSPICIO FULLON, AND CONCEPCION FULLON LIM, HEIRS OF THE LATE HERMOGINA OCAMPO ALCRUZ: JOSE MARS ALCRUZ, ANDREI ALCRUZ, MICHAEL ANGELO ALCRUZ, AND JOSE WINSTON ALCRUZ, HEIRS OF THE LATE JOSE OCAMPO: JOSE OCAMPO, JR., JOSE OCAMPO III, AND JOSE OCAMPO IV, HEIRS OF THE LATE FELISBERTO OCAMPO: NORMAN OCAMPO, MARY ANN OCAMPO, MARY LYN OCAMPO, MARIE JANE OCAMPO, AND ANTHONY OCAMPO, ALL HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT VIRGINIA FULLON AND CONCEPCION FULLON LIM, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 224819 — Danilo Granada, petitioner vs. Heirs of Salome Ocampo Fullon: Iderlina Fullon Bernabe, Wilfredo Fullon, Dan Hospicio Fullon, and Concepcion Fullon Lim, Heirs of the Late Hermogina1Ocampo Alcruz: Jose Mars Alcruz, Andrei Alcruz, Michael Angelo Alcruz, and Jose Winston Alcruz, Heirs of the Late Jose Ocampo: Jose Ocampo, Jr., Jose Ocampo III, and Jose Ocampo IV, Heirs of the Late Felisberto Ocampo: Norman Ocampo, Mary Ann Ocampo, Mary Lyn Ocampo, Marie Jane Ocampo, and Anthony Ocampo, all herein represented by their attorney-in-fact Virginia Fullon and Concepcion Fullon Lim, respondents.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari for a) failure to accompany the same with a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution in violation of Sections 4 (d) and 5, Rule 45, in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court; b) raising factual issues; and, (c) failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged August 28, 2015 Decision and April 19, 2016 Resolution in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 08516 as to warrant the exercise of this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case.
Petitioner raised factual issues which the Court is proscribed to resolve in a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to one another and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation. Time and again we have held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower tribunal or office. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court. . . . 2
Furthermore, the instant Petition failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the March 3, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Iloilo City affirming the November 20, 2012 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 5, Iloilo City which, in turn, favored respondents (as then plaintiffs) in Civil Case No. 54-10 for Unlawful Detainer and Damages with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. DACcIH
Firm is the rule that as long as these allegations demonstrate a cause of action for unlawful detainer, the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter.
xxx xxx xxx
The requirement that the complaint [for unlawful detainer or forcible entry] should aver, as jurisdictional facts, when and how entry into the property was made by the [defendant] applies only when the issue is the timeliness of the filing of the complaint before the [MTCC] . . . .
. . . Here, it is beyond dispute that the complaint for unlawful detainer was filed within one (1) year from the date the demand letter was sent . . . . 3
Also, "[i]t has repeatedly been emphasized that when the property is registered under the Torrens system, the registered owner's title to the property is presumed legal and cannot be collaterally attacked, especially in a mere action for unlawful detainer. It has even been held that it does not even matter if the party's title to the property is questionable." 4 Respondents, as present owners of the disputed property, have a better right to its material possession, which is one of the attributes of ownership. 5
Lastly, a careful consideration of the Petition further indicates petitioner's failure to show any cogent reason why the actions of the MTCC, the RTC, and the CA which have passed upon the same issue should be reversed. Petitioner failed to show that their factual findings are not based on the evidence submitted or that their decisions are contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence. We accord not only respect, but even finality, to the factual findings of the MTCC and RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in this case. "Findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the [CA], are binding upon this Court." 6
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the August 28, 2015 Decision and April 19, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 08516.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Sometimes referred to in the records as "Hermogena."
2. Iglesia Evangelica Metodista En Las Islas Filipinas, Inc. vs. Juane, 616 Phil. 529, 539-540 (2009); citations omitted.
3. Delos Reyes vs. Spouses Odones, 661 Phil. 676, 684-685 (2011).
4. Dela Cruz vs. Capco, G.R. No. 176055, March 17, 2014, 719 SCRA 291, 306.
5. Id. at 306-307.
6. Iglesia Evangelica Metodista En Las Islas Filipinas, Inc. vs. Juane, supra note 2, at 540.