FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233256. November 22, 2017.]
ALIPIO, FAUSTINO, ALBERTO, ARMANDO, MARITES, JESUS JR., MARIO, CIRILO, MIRRIAM, ADELA, ALL SURNAMED LUCIANO, AGRIPINA LUCIANO-ADRIANO, AND JULIETA LUCIANO-SANTOS, petitioners,vs. HEIRS OF ERNESTO POLICARPIO, PATRICIA LUCIANO POLICARPIO, JOSE LUCIANO, MARIA LUCIANO-HIPOLITO, SPOUSES ROGELIO IGNACIO AND FELISA MANALAYSAY-IGNACIO, SPOUSES JOCELYN B. GONZALES AND DONATO GONZALES, SPOUSES IRENEO BATONGBACAL AND GEMMA TERESA CRUZ-BATONGBACAL, NESTOR V. BATONGBACAL, LOURDES V. BATONGBACAL, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN (MEYCAUAYAN), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 22, 2017, which reads as follows: HSAcaE
"G.R. No. 233256 (Alipio, Faustino, Alberto, Armando, Marites, Jesus Jr., Mario, Cirilo, Mirriam, Adela, all surnamed Luciano, Agripina Luciano-Adriano, and Julieta Luciano-Santos v. Heirs of Ernesto Policarpio, Patricia Luciano Policarpio, Jose Luciano, Maria Luciano-Hipolito, Spouses Rogelio Ignacio and Felisa Manalaysay-Ignacio, Spouses Jocelyn B. Gonzales and Donato Gonzales, Spouses Ireneo Batongbacal and Gemma Teresa Cruz-Batongbacal, Nestor V. Batongbacal, Lourdes V. Batongbacal, and the Register of Deeds of Bulacan (Meycauayan)). — The Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated February 14, 2017 and Resolution dated August 2, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 106016 for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying the appeal.
Petitioners' issue revolves on the validity of the Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan dated October 12, 1978. This issue, however, is factual in nature which is best left to the determination of the trial courts. It is well-settled that this Court is not a trier of facts. As a matter of sound practice and procedure, the Court defers to the factual findings of the trial court when adopted and confirmed by the CA, 1 as in this case.
In any event, the CA correctly affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court in its Decision dated July 13, 2015, which dismissed petitioners' complaint for lack of merit. Indeed, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. 2 Petitioners, however, failed to prove that the notarized Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan is a forged document. Hence, the presumption of regularity in its execution is upheld.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Gepulle-Garbo v. Garabato, G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015, 746 SCRA 189, 198.
2.Id.