FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240192. August 8, 2018.]
PASTOR WENDELL M. SERRANO, LEVY B. BALITON, NEE VIOLE SERRANO-HOPKINS, CECIL MERVYN A. GUCILUTARA, YVIVONE ESCANER-SERRANO AND GINA P. GUAREN, petitioners,vs. PACITA N. LUCDAY, SULPICIO L. NANOLAN, FE L. OKIT, RICHIE C. NANOLAN, HANNA B. NANOLAN, GEORGE C. NANOLAN, ELVIN N. NANOLAN, VIOLETA N. NANOLAN, CHRISTOPHER C. NANOLAN, WENDIE N. ALUNAN, ARDANE N. ALUNAN, ARNEL N. ALUNAN, ARGEN KHAN N. ALUNAN AND MERLYN A. VALIENTE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 240192 — Pastor Wendell M. Serrano, Levy B. Baliton, Nee Viole Serrano-Hopkins, Cecil Mervyn A. Gucilatara, Yvivone Escaner-Serrano and Gina P. Guaren, Petitioners, v. Pacita N. Lucday, Sulpicio L. Nanolan, Fe L. Okit, Richie C. Nanolan, Hanna B. Nanolan, George C. Nanolan, Elvin N. Nanolan, Violeta N. Nanolan, Christopher C. Nanolan, Wendie N. Alunan, Ardane N. Alunan, Arnel N. Alunan, Argen Khan N. Alunan and Merlyn A. Valiente, Respondents.
Acting on petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to GRANT them thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on June 29, 2018 within which to file a petition.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for: (a) lack of certification against forum shopping; 1 and (b) failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04533-MIN committed any reversible error in affirming the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, Branch 11 (RTC) dismissing the petition for "declaratory relief, injunction with TRO and damages" in Civil Case No. 15-05-154.
Petitioners contend that they were purchasers in good faith and for value. They insist that they had no knowledge that the subject properties were involved in a suit filed against their predecessor-in-interest, Marilyn Valiente (Marilyn). They also claim that since there was no indication of any flaw in the title of Marilyn when she sold the properties to them, then they properly relied on her representation; thus, they were entitled to the subject properties.
Such contentions are however without merit.
The Court is not a trier of facts and only questions of law may be resolved in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. While there are exceptions to this rule, none finds application here. Moreover, considering that the findings of fact and conclusion of law of the RTC were affirmed on appeal by the CA, the same are conclusive and are binding upon the Court. 2
We also take note that petitioners assail in their petition for declaratory relief/injunction an already final and executory decision of the RTC. On this, we agree with the RTC and the CA that such decision cannot anymore be disturbed as the same is already immutable. 3 aScITE
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed January 22, 2018 Decision and May 31, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04533-MIN.
Moreover, petitioners' counsel is hereby required to indicate his contact details (i.e., telephone numbers, cell phone numbers and/or e-mail address) pursuant to A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC dated July 10, 2017, within five (5) days from notice hereof.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
2.Spouses Bernales v. Heirs of Sambaan, 624 Phil. 88, 97-98, 103 (2010).
3.Land Bank of the Phils. v. Arceo, 581 Phil. 77, 85-86 (2008).