SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243546. February 13, 2019.]
HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION (FORMERLY HOME INSURANCE GUARANTY CORPORATION), petitioner, vs. SPOUSES CARLITO DE LEON AND LINA SY DE LEON, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243546 — Home Guaranty Corporation (formerly Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation) versus Spouses Carlito De Leon and Lina Sy De Leon
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals, Eleventh Division's assailed Decision 1 dated June 8, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated December 12, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 106816, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for failure of petitioner Home Guaranty Corporation (petitioner HGC) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error that warrants the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
First and foremost, Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires petitioner HGC to attach all the material portions of the record as would support the instant Petition. However, petitioner HGC failed to attach essential decisions, orders, and pleadings pertinent to the resolution of instant case. In fact, petitioner HGC only attached two (2) documents to the instant Petition, i.e., the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA. On this point alone, for failing to attach the material records of the instant case, the instant Petition merits outright dismissal. CAIHTE
In any case, after a careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court finds that, contrary to the assertions of petitioner HGC, the latter, together with its predecessors-in-interest, were not buyers in good faith. Further, petitioner HGC failed to provide any cogent argument to prove that it has a better title over the subject property compared to the respondents Spouses Carlito De Leon and Lina Sy De Leon. As a final note, the Court denies petitioner HGC's invocation of the doctrine of indefeasibility of title. The Court has held that the defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title does not extend to a transferee who takes the certificate of title with notice of a flaw. A holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled to the protection of the law, for the law cannot be used as a shield for frauds. 3 aScITE
SO ORDERED. (HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-33. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz concurring.
2.Id. at 35-36.
3.Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 15, 34 (2000).