FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238155. January 7, 2019.]
HEIRS OF CASTOR JANULGUE, REPRESENTED BY VICENTE S. GAYOSA, HEIRS OF RESTITUTO S. JANULGUE, REPRESENTED BY RAUL JANULGUE, HEIRS OF EVANGELISTO JANULGUE, REPRESENTED BY NATIVIDAD V. JANULGUE, HEIRS OF EUFEMIA S. JANULGUE, REPRESENTED BY ROMUALDO J. RAGANDANG, HEIRS OF METODIO S. JANULGUE, REPRESENTED BY PERPETUO D. JANULGUE, ET AL., petitioners,vs. HEIRS OF GERARDO B. PADILLA AND SOLEDAD C. PADILLA, AND MARIA CYNTHIA PADILLA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 7, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238155 (Heirs of Castor Janulgue, represented by Vicente S. Gayosa, Heirs of Restituto S. Janulgue, represented by Raul Janulgue, Heirs of Evangelisto Janulgue, represented by Natividad V. Janulgue, Heirs of Eufemia S. Janulgue, represented by Romualdo J. Ragandang, Heirs of Metodio S. Janulgue, represented by Perpetuo D. Janulgue, et al. v. Heirs of Gerardo B. Padilla and Soledad C. Padilla, and Maria Cynthia Padilla). — After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing petitioners' appeal and affirming the trial court's finding that petitioners' action is barred by laches and prescription.
The CA correctly ruled that laches has set in considering that petitioners took more than 20 years to impugn respondents' titles, which were issued in years 1992 and 1993. Petitioners' action has likewise prescribed. As the CA observed, petitioners' possession was disturbed on January 31, 2003, when respondents filed complaints for recovery of possession against them. However, it took petitioners more than 10 years to file the present complaint.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated August 4, 2017 and Resolution dated February 27, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 03840-MIN are AFFIRMED.
The petitioners' compliance with the Resolution dated July 9, 2018, submitting a certified true copy of the assailed Court of Appeals decision, a verified statement of material date when notice of the Court of Appeals decision was received and a USB containing the soft copies of the petition for review on certiorari and the motion for extension of time to file petition; and manifestation that the petition for review on certiorari was served on the Court of Appeals and adverse parties on April 23 and not April 21, 2018 as stated in the affidavit of service and praying that the notice of hearing and explanation stated in the motion for extension of time to file petition be considered sufficient compliance with the requirement of affidavit of service of the motion for extension on the Court of Appeals and adverse parties are NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official business; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2632 dated December 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court