SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236397. March 14, 2018.]
VALERIANO GABRIEL V. SEGURA, petitioner,vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 March 2018which reads as follows: AIDSTE
"G.R. No. 236397 (Valeriano Gabriel V. Segura v. Republic of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS outright the instant petition filed by petitioner Valeriano Gabriel V. Segura (petitioner) from the February 23, 2017 Decision 1 and November 6, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 04254 for failure to serve a copy of the Petition, with proof of service thereof, on the CA, in accordance with Section 5, 3 Rule 45 in relation to Section 3, 4 Rule 45 and Section 5, Rule 56, 5 all of the Rules of Court.
In any event, the Court finds no merit in the petition for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for reconstitution. As the CA correctly ruled, petitioner could not be considered a proper party to seek reconstitution of Decree No. 121088 as he failed to sufficiently prove that Isabelo Montesclaros (Montesclaros) — from whose heirs he derived his title — acquired Lot No. 4127 from Noel Maximino (Maximino) — from whom Montesclaros and his heirs trace their title over Lot No. 4127. More importantly, the evidence presented by petitioner to prove his claim, i.e., the April 27, 2007 Certification 6 issued by the Land Registration Authority, did not show the nature, as well as the name of the claimant of Lot No. 4127 to whom Decree No. 121088 was purportedly issued, i.e., whether Decree No. 121088 granted or denied Maximino's claim over Lot No. 4127, but only that a decree was issued.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 32-40. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
2.Id. at 44-46. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino concurring.
3. SEC. 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of petition. — Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and lawful fees to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition. Proof of service of a copy, thereof on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition. (Emphasis supplied)
4. SEC. 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the ground that the appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. (Emphases supplied)
5. SEC. 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of service x x x;
xxx xxx xxx
6. Copy not attached, but see rollo, p. 10, portion of which states:
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that after due verification of our 'Record Book of Cadastral Lots,' it was found that Lot No. 4127 of the Cadastral Survey of Carcar, Province of Cebu, Cadastral Case No. 5, LRC Cadastral Record No. 62 was issued Decree No. 121088."