SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247709. July 29, 2019.]
HEIRS OF IGNACIA LEDESMA VDA. DE NATIVIDAD, petitioners, vs.HEIRS OF JULIO LEDESMA AND THE COURT OF APPEALS [21ST DIVISION], respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247709 (Heirs of Ignacia Ledesma Vda. De Natividad v. Heirs of Julio Ledesma and the Court of Appeals [21st Division])
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for being the wrong remedy in assailing the August 31, 2018 Decision 2 and the April 5, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04237-MIN. Petitioners Heirs of Ignacia Ledesma Vda. De Natividad's (petitioners) proper recourse to assail the CA's findings was to file a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), and not the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. It is settled that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari would not lie if there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 4 Moreover, certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal 5 ever if the ground raised is grave abuse of discretion, 6 as in this case. Thus, the petition is dismissible.
In any event, the CA did not gravely abuse its discretion in declaring the February 7, 1977 Deed of Sale 7 null and void, for the reason that the properties at the time of the sale were still under the administration of Ignacia Ledesma Vda. De Natividad, who is expressly prohibited by law from acquiring the same through purchase. 8
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-28.
2.Id. at 31-36. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
3.Id. at 62-63. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., concurring.
4.Republic v. Yang Chi Hao, 617 Phil. 422, 432 (2009).
5.Id.
6.Balayan v. Acorda, 523 Phil. 305, 309 (2006).
7. Not attached to the rollo.
8. See rollo, pp. 33-34. See also Article 1491 of the CIVIL CODE, which provides:
Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration[.]