SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232113. March 14, 2018.]
ESTRELLA P. MABINI LEANO, petitioner,vs. PRUDENTIAL BANK (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 March 2018which reads as follows: HSAcaE
"G.R. No. 232113 — Estrella P. Mabini Leano versus Prudential Bank (now Bank of the Philippine Islands)
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Decision 1 dated September 16, 2016 and the Resolution 2 dated April 21, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 101386, the Court resolves to DISMISS the same.
The Court notes at the outset that the CA was correct in observing petitioner's fatal error in procedure. Under Section 1 (f), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, the CA may, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, dismiss an appeal for failure to include a specific assignment of errors in the appellant's brief. An appeal, not being a natural right but merely a remedy of statutory origin, may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise. 3 On this score, the CA committed no reversible error. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court affirms the CA's Decision dated September 16, 2016.
Stripped of verbiage, the principal issue is simply whether the issuance of a writ of possession impinges on the legitime of a compulsory heir of the registered owner of the property sought to be possessed. The Court finds in the negative.
In the first place, as pointed out by the CA, petitioner failed to adduce evidence to substantiate her claim of the existence of a compulsory heir. Nevertheless, petitioner's argument of the alleged impairment of her heir's legitime is highly erroneous. As correctly held by the CA, no successional rights have yet been transferred as the same are transmitted at the moment of death of the decedent. Moreover, the subject property in this case, being sold involuntarily, will not form part of petitioner's gross estate; hence, there is no impairment of legitime to speak of.
Lastly, it bears emphasis that respondent is entitled as a matter of right to the issuance of a writ of possession, considering the uncontroverted fact that petitioner failed to redeem the subject property within the period allowed by the law.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 16-22. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino (now deceased), with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
2.Id. at 32-35.
3.Oro v. Diaz, 413 Phil. 416, 426-427 (2001).