SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225079. August 31, 2016.]
HEIRS OF TERESITA V. ASIS-DE LANGE, REPRESENTED BY JOHN PIETER A. DE LANGE, petitioners, vs. BERNADETTE JOSE VDA DE ASIS, MARIA TRINIDAD M. ASIS, PATRICK JACOB ASIS AND MARIA RITA VICTORIA ASIS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 31 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225079 — Heirs of Teresita V. Asis-de Lange, represented by John Pieter A. de Lange vs. Bernadette Jose Vda de Asis, Maria Trinidad M. Asis, Patrick Jacob Asis and Maria Rita Victoria Asis
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 137850 committed any reversible error in affirming the Orders dated March 6, 2014 and August 26, 2014 1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Juan City, Branch 264 in SCA Case No. 3033.
As correctly reasoned by the CA, no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed against the RTC for issuing the assailed Orders as the latter, granting that the appeal was already perfected, merely exercised its residual jurisdiction provided for by Section 9 of Rule 41 2 of the Rules of Court to protect and preserve the rights of all parties. The RTC's order to maintain the status quo did not touch on matters that may be litigated on appeal, i.e., the matter of ownership and partition. The RTC was only guided by its intention to forestall any undue advantage and protect the rights of all the litigants from unwarranted possession de facto of the property in controversy pending the final resolution of the controversy among them. Furthermore, petitioners cannot claim that their possession over the premises is part of the status quo, as the CA had factually noted that petitioners were not yet in possession of the subject premises prior to the filing of the partition suit in 2006. They occupied the premises only in 2010.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed January 4, 2016 Decision and June 7, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137850. AHDacC
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Written erroneously in the assailed Order as 2013.
2. Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — A party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.