SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233141. November 20, 2017.]
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MAASIN, INC., REPRESENTED BY MOST REVEREND MONSIGNOR PRECIOSO D. CANTILLAS, SBD, DD., petitioner,vs. LOURDES G. MERCADO SUBSTITUTED BY ROGER G. MERCADO, ALVIN MERCADO, ET AL., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 November 2017which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233141 (Roman Catholic Bishop of Maasin, Inc., represented by Most Reverend Monsignor Precioso D. Cantillas, SBD, DD. v. Lourdes G. Mercado substituted by Roger G. Mercado, Alvin Mercado, et al.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the October 5, 2016 Decision 1 and July 3, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. C.V. No. 02538 for failure of petitioner Roman Catholic Bishop of Maasin, Inc., represented by Most Reverend Monsignor Precioso D. Cantillas, SBD, DD. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate power.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's failure to present any arguments on the assigned errors violates Section 13 (f), Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, and thus, merits the dismissal of the appeal. Notably, action for annulment of contracts based on fraud prescribes in four years, 3 while an action for reconveyance prescribes in ten years. 4 In any case, petitioner's action for annulment of Deed of Sale and Reconveyance already prescribed since the complaint was filed in 2003 — way beyond the prescriptive period when the cause of action accrued in 1991.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, JR., J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 36-50. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi concurring.
2.Id. at 52-55.
3. Article 1391, New Civil Code.
4.Brito, Sr. v. Dianala, 653 Phil. 200-212 (2010).