SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236220. April 10, 2019.]
SPOUSES ROMEO A. FERNANDEZ, SR. AND NONITA FERNANDEZ, THE LATTER BEING SUBSTITUTED BY HER CHILDREN, NAMELY: ROMY JOHN A. FERNANDEZ, ROMELYN A. FERNANDEZ AND ROMEO A. FERNANDEZ, JR., petitioners, vs.UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF MAKATI CITY AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236220 — Spouses Romeo A. Fernandez, Sr. and Nonita Fernandez, the latter being substituted by her children, namely: Romy John A. Fernandez, Romelyn A. Fernandez and Romeo A. Fernandez, Jr. versus United Coconut Planters Bank, the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Makati City and the Register of Deeds of Makati City
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated June 30, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated November 16, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 103566, this Court finds that the questions in the present Petition raise purely factual questions, involving as they do the calibration of evidence — a matter which, absent proof of exceptional circumstances — is outside the province of this Court. Nevertheless, this Court finds that petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
There is fraud when insidious words or machinations are deployed by one party to induce another to enter into a contract. 3 To nullify a contract on the basis of fraud, the party alleging its existence must prove that the fraud is serious 4 and must do so by clear and convincing evidence. 5 This, petitioners clearly failed to do. As aptly observed by the CA, mere allegation, without further proof, will not suffice to sustain the existence of fraud.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals' Decision dated June 30, 2017 and Resolution dated November 16, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 103566.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 35-43. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurring.
2.Id. at 64-65.
3. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to.
4.Id., Art. 1344. In order that fraud may make a contract voidable, it should be serious and should not have been employed by both contracting parties.
5.Riguer v. Mateo, 811 Phil. 538, 547 (2017).