FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243177. March 25, 2019.]
SPS. JESUS CANTO AND FELONILA CANTO, petitioners, vs.ROGELIO SANTOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 25, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243177 — Sps. Jesus Canto and Felonila Canto, Petitioners, v. Rogelio Santos, Respondent.
Acting on petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court hereby GRANTS them a period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file their petition.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for raising factual issues and for failure of the petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 100461 committed any reversible error in affirming the dismissal of their complaint in Civil Case No. 2003-0309-D for "Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession and Damages."
The issue of whether a party acted in good faith is one that involves a question of intention which is determined by a review of the evidence adduced by the parties. Such is the case since "[g]ood faith, or want of it, is capable of being ascertained only from the acts of one claiming its presence, for it is a condition of the mind which can be judged by actual or fancied token or signs. Good faith, or want of it, is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be judged by actual or fancied token or signs x x x." 1
Petitioners argue that they purchased the subject property in good faith. However, considering that the determination of presence or absence of good faith on their part requires an evaluation of factual matters, such endeavor is beyond the scope of this petition. The Court is not a trier of facts and solely questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. While there are exceptions to this rule, none of which was shown to exist here. 2 Verily, we find that the CA correctly affirmed the trial court's Decision dismissing the case for lack of merit.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed March 28, 2018 Decision and November 19, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100461. DHITCc
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of Militar, 526 Phil. 788, 796 (2006).
2.Id. at 799-800.