THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236613. April 4, 2018.]
FE MEDINA AND RONALD MEDINA, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES LEONARDO RIVERA AND JOVITA RIVERA, represented in this suit by their attorney-in-fact, ELADIO P. CANDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236613 (Fe Medina and Ronald Medina, Petitioners, v. Spouses Leonardo Rivera and Jovita Rivera, represented in this suit by their Attorney-in-Fact, Eladio P. Cando, Respondents.) — The respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land with an area of 2,513 square meters situated in Nueva Ecija, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. NT-156298 of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Nueva Ecija and by Tax Declaration No. 05-08006-00473. The land was the subject of the complaint for unlawful detainer docketed as Civil Case No. 839 filed by respondent Leonardo Rivera against petitioner Fe Medina, and the Court decided in their favor by ordering the latter to vacate the property. 1
More than a decade later, the respondents brought a complaint for accion publiciana in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Nueva Ecija claiming that a portion of the property with an area of 733 square meters remained to be occupied by Fe Medina and her son Ronald Medina, the co-petitioner. The complaint averred that the respondents had allowed the Medinas to stay in the property out of pity and due to the latter's constant plea on condition that they would vacate upon demand; and that the Medinas had refused to vacate despite written notice to vacate sent on January 20, 2011. 2
In contrast, the petitioners contended that they had the right to possess the property in question inasmuch as they had purchased it from Potenciano Bautista and Lucresia Dorde Bautista, the previous owners, as evidenced by the Bilihan ng Lupang Solar executed in 1985; and that Ronald had constructed a house thereon, which was acknowledged as an improvement by the Municipal Assessor through Tax Declaration No. 11-08006-00410 issued in the name of Ronald and his wife. 3
The respondents countered, however, that the property had been registered in their names since 1978; and that the construction of the house by Ronald had been without their knowledge. 4
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, holding that they were entitled to recover possession from the petitioners because the previous ejectment case that they had filed was decided in their favor; that TCT No. NT-156298 showed that they were the registered owners of the property; that the Bilihan ng Lupang Solar could not be admitted as evidence because it was neither annotated nor registered; that the tax declaration the petitioners had presented was not relevant because it pertained to the house inside the lot, not to the property in question. 5
The petitioners appealed to the CA.
In its assailed decision promulgated on August 23, 2017, 6 the CA affirmed the RTC, and found that the respondents held the better right to the possession of the property by virtue of their being the registered owners; that the petitioners' contention that the respondents had not been buyers in good faith constituted a collateral attack against the Torrens title of the respondents; and that the documentary evidence presented by the petitioners did not establish their ownership considering that the Bilihan ng Lupang Solar did not identify with particularity the object of the contract, while Tax Declaration No. 11-08006-00410 pertained to the building, not to the land subject of the case.
After the CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, 7 they brought this appeal, insisting that the CA erred in ruling that they mounted a collateral attack on the Torrens title of the respondents; and in not ruling that the respondents were not buyers in good faith.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC.
The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the common factual findings of the RTC and the CA to the effect that the respondents had the better right to possess the property based on their being the registered owners thereof. Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court, especially after the CA affirmed such findings, 8 as in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 23, 2017; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 22.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 23.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 21-27; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting and Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
7.Id. at 30-31.
8.People v. Camannong, G.R. No. 199497, August 24, 2016. 801 SCRA 354, 364.