FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241306. October 3, 2018.]
JULIE SANTAIN, petitioner, vs.RODOLFO ADAJO AND BASILISA * DAVID, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 3, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241306 (Julie Santain v. Rodolfo Adajo and Basilisa David). — At the onset, it must be stated that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached in the petition is signed by one Allan D. Bantilo (affiant), who alleged in the same document that he is the main petitioner/defendant in the case represented by Julie Santain. It appears, however, in the records that the party involved is Julie Santain. 1 The affiant has no proof of authority to cause the preparation of the petition and to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping for and on behalf of petitioner. Additionally, affiant failed to indicate his identification details exhibited and presented before the notary public, and the affidavit of service attached to the petition does not indicate the date of service of the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA). For the foregoing reasons, the petition should be denied outright for failure to comply with Sections 3 and 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In any case, after review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to establish that the CA committed any reversible error when it ruled that the Regional Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court are correct in holding that respondents were able to establish that they were in prior physical possession and were unlawfully and forcibly dispossessed of their properties by petitioner, for which they are entitled to regain possession of the same. Moreover, petitioner raises questions of fact which generally may not be entertained in a Rule 45 petition. No circumstances warrant the application of the exceptions to this rule.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 30, 2018 and Resolution dated July 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141593 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The amount of P5,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation to be paid by petitioner to respondents for the use and occupation of the property from August 2012 until the property is fully vacated shall earn legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from August 2012 until June 30, 2013; and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid.
The counsel for petitioner is hereby required to COMPLY within five (5) days from notice hereof, with A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC dated July 10, 2007 re: statement of contact details (e.g., telephone number, fax number, cellular phone number or e-mail address) of parties or their counsels in all papers and pleadings filed with the Supreme Court; and the Justices of Special former Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals are hereby DELETED as party respondents in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 RCP, as amended. SDHTEC
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, J., on official travel.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* See Rollo, p. 19. Also referred to as "Basilia" in the petition.
1. See Decisions of the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Id. at 21, 111, and 125.