FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241992. December 3, 2018.]
BHAGWAN RAMNANI AND KISHORE RAMNANI, petitioners, vs.GENOVEVA P. TAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 3, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241992 — Bhagwan Ramnani and Kishore Ramnani, Petitioners, vs. Genoveva P. Tan, Respondent.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time of fifteen (15) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on October 3, 2018 within which to file their Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After a judicious review of petitioners' allegations and in accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court further resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioners to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in rendering the assailed Amended Decision 1 and Resolution dated December 28, 2017 and August 30, 2018, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 102870.
Petitioners assert that respondent is estopped from assailing the validity of the real estate mortgages when the latter filed a complaint for estafa and demanded the proceeds of the loan. They likewise argue that Lorna D. Briones-Bhandari's (Lorna) conviction proves the due execution of the Special Power of Attorney (SPA). For petitioners, the Court cannot order the annulment of the mortgage and, at the same time, award the proceeds of the loan secured by the said mortgage.
Petitioners essentially raise the same issues it brought up before the CA. It is elementary that a review of appeals filed before this Court is not a matter of right, but a matter of sound judicial discretion. Moreover, factual findings of the appellate court will not be reviewed nor disturbed upon appeal to this Court. As this Court is not a trier of facts, We will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the appellate courts are final, binding and conclusive on the parties and upon this Court especially when supported by substantial evidence. CAacTH
The Court finds no cogent reason to overturn the findings of the CA. As unerringly stated by the CA in the herein assailed Resolution, 2 "nowhere in the Amended Decision did We make a pronouncement that [Lorna]'s conviction in the criminal case for estafa was Our basis for declaring that the SPA was void. It was Our analysis of the factual milieu which led Us to conclude that [respondent]'s consent to the SPA was vitiated." 3 Indeed, in its Amended Decision, the CA held thus:
From the factual circumstances, summarized above, of how Lorna Briones-Bhandari obtained the SPA from Genoveva Tan, the RTC correctly deduced that Genoveva Tan's consent was vitiated. Otherwise stated, there was indeed fraud employed in the execution of the contract which affected the consent of the plaintiff appellee. In signing the SPA, Genoveva Tan relied on the representation of Lorna Briones-Bhandari and her husband that they would find funding for the plaintiff-appellee's planned business venture. As Genoveva Tan could not see to this matter herself, she completely reposed her trust and confidence on Spouses Bhandari especially because Lorna Briones-Bhandari was her niece. Little did she know that her own relative was out to defraud her. The plaintiff-appellee may not have been physically coerced or intimidated but this does not necessarily imply that her consent was not vitiated by fraud.
The fraud perpetrated upon Genoveva Tan having been clearly established, the RTC was correct in annulling and voiding the SPA and the real estate mortgages rooted in the said SPA. 4
And finally, petitioners' claim of good faith holds no water on account of their unjustified snubbing of respondent's letter-requests to be furnished the documents and details of the real estate mortgages involving the latter's properties.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed Amended Decision and Resolution dated December 28, 2017 and August 30, 2018, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 102870. IAETDc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 51-57; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Renato C. Francisco.
2.Id. at pp. 58-61.
3.Id. at p. 60.
4.Rollo, pp. 53-54.