FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241448. December 5, 2018.]
APRIL LASS O. RAVELO, HEREIN REP. BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, DEBORAH O. RAVELO, petitioner,vs. LORNA R. FERNANDEZ, LIAN P. SHING ON, MA. TERESA I. OH, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 5, 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241448 (April Lass O. Ravelo, herein rep. by her Attorney-in-Fact, Deborah O. Ravelo v. Lorna R. Fernandez, Lian P. Shing On, Ma. Teresa I. Oh, and all persons claiming rights under them). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing the complaint for recovery of possession with damages of petitioner.
As correctly ruled by the CA, "the core issue in an action for the recovery of possession of realty or [accion publiciana, like the present case, is only] concerned [with] the priority right to the possession of the realty." 1 "When parties, however, raise the issue of ownership, the court may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property, [but such determination] is not final and binding [on] the issue of ownership [as] it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession." 2 As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to prove her priority right to the possession over the property considering that she was never in possession of the same, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) continuously received monthly payments of respondent Lorna R. Fernandez (Lorna), who was the first buyer of the property, and there is no proof that Lorna received the notices from GSIS from her account, which was allegedly in default. In any event, the Court's ruling in this case shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the property. 3
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated February 27, 2018 and Resolution dated August 9, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 108533 are AFFIRMED.
The Court of Appeals is hereby DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Abobon v. Abobon, G.R. No. 155830, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 399, 409.
2.Gabriel v. Crisologo, G.R. No. 204626, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 528, 538.
3.Acosta v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 140967, June 26, 2003, 405 SCRA 55, 60.