SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247455. July 29, 2019.]
PONCIANO MANANSALA, petitioner, vs.JACINTA VILLENA MENDOZA, REPRESENTED BY RENATO B. VILLENA, THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED FIDENCIO T. VILLENA, REPRESENTED BY RENATO B. VILLENA, AND THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED PEDRO T. VILLENA, REPRESENTED BY GERARDO C. VILLENA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247455 (Ponciano Manansala v. Jacinta Villena Mendoza, represented by Renato B. Villena, the Estate of the deceased Fidencio T. Villena, represented by Renato B. Villena, and the Estate of the deceased Pedro T. Villena, represented by Gerardo C. Villena)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the October 25, 2018 Decision 2 and the May 20, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154634 for failure of petitioner Ponciano Manansala (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming respondents Jacinta Villena Mendoza, represented by Renato B. Villena, the Estate of the deceased Fidencio T. Villena, represented by Renato B. Villena, and the Estate of the deceased Pedro T. Villena, represented by Gerardo C. Villena's (respondents), better right of possession.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents had sufficiently established their ownership over the subject property by presenting Transfer Certificate of Title No. 70778-R 4 and Tax Declaration No. A-02009-3024 5 issued in their names. 6 Being the registered owners of the subject property, respondents accordingly had a better right of possession thereof. 7 Even if there is doubt as to how respondents were able to secure their title over the property, an action for recovery of possession is not the proper venue for petitioner to question the same. 8 It is well-settled that an ejectment case only resolves the issue of who has the better right of possession, referring to actual possession and not legal possession, over the property. 9
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. 12-25.
2.Id. at 33-41. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
3.Id. at 43-44.
4.Id. at 71.
5.Id. at 72.
6. See id. at 38.
7. See id.
8. See id. at 39.
9. See Eversley Childs Sanitarium v. Spouses Barbarona, G.R. No. 195814, April 4, 2018.