FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211528. February 18, 2019.]
SPOUSES NENITA BULAHAN AND OSCAR BULAHAN, petitioners, vs.MA. CLARA BOLIVAR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 18, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 211528 (SPOUSES NENITA BULAHAN and OSCAR BULAHAN, Petitioners, v. MA. CLARA BOLIVAR, Respondent.) — The petitioners appeal the November 11, 2013 decision 1 and the February 12, 2014 2 resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 98891, 3 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the judgment rendered on April 12, 2012 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, Naga City in Civil Case No. RTC 04-0022. 4 The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respective appeals filed by the parties are both DENIED. The Decision dated April 12, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, Naga City is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that defendants-appellants are ordered to pay the plaintiff-appellant, within a period of ninety (90) days from the entry of judgment hereof, the principal loan of P150,000.00 plus twelve percent (12%) interest per annum from January 5, 2001 until fully paid and P30,000.00 as attorney's fees; and in default of such payment, the mortgaged property shall be sold at public auction to satisfy this judgment.
SO ORDERED. 5
Herein petitioners denied having borrowed anything from the respondent but admitted that they owed money to the respondent's mother; that they had already paid the said loan as evidenced by acknowledgment receipts of their payment; 6 that the "Un-dated" and "Un-notarized" mortgage contract is defective and unenforceable; and that they did not give their consent to the real estate mortgage. 7 As such, the petitioners insist that the CA erred in affirming the RTC and in not dismissing the respondent's claim against them due to lack of cause of action.
We DENY the petition.
Notable herein that the petitioners appeal the factual conclusion made by the CA. However, we do not delve into factual matters considering that this Court is not a trier of facts. Moreover, we accord deference to the factual findings of the CA and the lower courts, save for the most compelling and cogent reasons. 8 In Heirs of Villanueva v. Heirs of Mendoza, 9 we said: CAIHTE
It is a settled rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. As a matter of sound practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts. To do otherwise would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts, which is not its intended purpose under the law. Here, the issue is essentially factual in nature, the determination of which is best left to the courts below, especially the trial court.
At any rate, we fail to see any cogent reason to depart from the findings of fact by the CA considering that its conclusion was supported by the evidence submitted by the parties.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for lack of merit; AFFIRMS the November 11, 2013 decision and the February 12, 2014 resolution rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98891; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-31; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser.
2.Id. at 39-40.
3. Entitled "Ma. Clara Bolivar, plaintiff-appellant v. Spouses Nenita Bulahan and Oscar Bulahan, Jr., defendants-appellants."
4. See rollo, p. 20.
5.Rollo, p. 31.
6.Id. at 8.
7.Id. at 10-14.
8.Lacson v. Lacson, G.R. No. 150644, August 28, 2006, 499 SCRA 677, 685.
9. G.R. No. 209132, June 5, 2017, 825 SCRA 513, 519-520.