Malvar v. Purple Sky, Inc.
This is a civil case (G.R. No. 235540) decided by the Philippine Supreme Court on March 27, 2019. The legal issue in this case involves the validity of a hearing on affirmative defenses conducted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a quieting of title case between the same parties. The Supreme Court denied the petition, citing its previous decision in G.R. No. 229433, which already settled the same issue. The Court also ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming the trial court's factual findings that the petitioner failed to establish his claim by preponderance of evidence.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235540. March 27, 2019.]
EDWIN E. MALVAR, petitioner, vs.PURPLE SKY, INC. AND EDGARDO M. MATEO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 March 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235540 — Edwin E. Malvar versus Purple Sky, Inc. and Edgardo M. Mateo
After an exhaustive review of the instant Petition and its annexes, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition.
With respect to the petitioner's central argument regarding the hearing on the respondents' affirmative defense conducted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), it must be noted that the Third Division of this Court, in G.R. No. 229433, 1 which involved the same parties and the same facts as the instant Petition, already decided upon the same exact issue presented by the petitioner with finality. In fact, in the said case, an entry of judgment was already issued by this Court. Thus, this Court is constrained to leave the issue on the validity of the hearing on the affirmative defenses conducted by the RTC unperturbed.
Further, with respect to the other arguments posed by the petitioner in the instant Petition, the petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision 2 dated January 31, 2017 and Resolution 3 dated June 28, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 104354, as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
It bears stressing that this Court is not a trier of facts and will not re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence on record. Factual findings of the CA, affirming that of the trial court, are therefore generally final and conclusive on this Court. 4 In the instant case, the lower courts found, after an exhaustive examination of the respective evidence of the parties by the RTC, that the petitioner failed to establish by preponderance of evidence his cause of action for Quieting of Title against the respondents. The Court does not find any reason to disturb such factual findings by the lower courts.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., no part; JARDELEZA, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587-Q dated October 31, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Resolution dated July 12, 2017, rollo, p. 213.
2.Rollo, pp. 51-73. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
3.Id. at 75-76.
4.Cereno v. Court of Appeals, 695 Phil. 820, 828 (2012).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU