FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243199. March 4, 2019.]
HEIRS OF VICTOR REYES, NAMELY: HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE MERIAN H. REYES, ET AL., petitioners, vs.GREGORIO A. REYES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 4, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243199 — Heirs of Victor Reyes, namely: his surviving spouse Merian H. Reyes, et al., Petitioners, v. Gregorio A. Reyes, Respondent.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' Motion for Extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and resolves to DENY the same: (1) for raising a purely factual issue; and (2) for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 110403, committed any reversible error in affirming the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) October 25, 2017 Decision.
The instant petition essentially seeks to have this Court review the evidence presented before the RTC concerning the alleged co-ownership between the parties over the subject land. Petitioners' quest will not succeed because only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The factual findings of the CA bind this Court. 1 This rule especially holds true here since the RTC and the CA are unanimous in their factual findings and conclusions.
In any case, this Court finds that the CA did not err in upholding the RTC's decision granting respondent's Petition for Cancellation of Adverse claim if only because petitioners, though accorded ample opportunity to do so, utterly filed to adduce a shred of evidence to contradict respondent's documentary evidence proving sole ownership over the contested lot. It may be well to remind petitioners that "[b]asic is the rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies upon him[/her] who asserts it, not upon him[/her] who denies, since, by the nature of things, he[/she]e who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it." 2
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated November 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 110403.
Respondent's Comment to Petition for Review on Certiorari dated February 13, 2019 is hereby NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil., 167, 169 (2016), citing Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
2.MOF Company, Inc. v. Shin Yang Brokerage Corporation, 623 Phil. 424, 436 (2009).