Spouses Ite v. Spouses Cabagyo

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 196370. July 30, 2019.]

SPOUSES JAIME AND ZENAIDA ITE, CECILIA A. REYES AND ANTONIO A. BAUTISTA, petitioners, vs.SPOUSES GUILBEN AND JOSEPHINE CABAGYO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 30, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 196370(SPOUSES JAIME AND ZENAIDA ITE, CECILIA A. REYES and ANTONIO A. BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES GUILBEN and JOSEPHINE CABAGYO, Respondents.) — We resolve this appeal filed by the petitioners against the December 9, 2010 decision 1 and March 30, 2011 resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Pallocan West, Batangas City in Civil Case Nos. 4943 and 4937.

Herein petitioners insist that the encumbrance appearing in their title was only made pursuant to Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529; that the prohibition against selling only requires court approval; that there was no requirement of prior court approval before the sale of the subject property should be made; that the contested lot was not used as a road lot, hence, the improvements they introduced therein did not constitute as nuisance; and that the respondents should pay for rentals due to the unauthorized connection of the sewerage system through the subject lot without their knowledge.

We find no cogent reason to reverse the CA.

In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, We limit our jurisdiction to reviewing only 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. 3 Although there are recognized exceptions 4 to the above rule, the petitioners failed to substantially prove that their cause merit our attention.

At any rate, We concur with the CA that the sale of the contested lot sans prior court approval violated the encumbrance appearing on the title, as well as Section 50 of P.D. No. 1529. Indeed, when the petitioners-spouses filed their petition before the RTC, the construction of the house on the contested lot had already been completed, and thereby pre-empted whatever decision that the RTC may have thereon.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition; AFFIRMS the decision and resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 73729; 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. 31-39; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, concurring.

2.Id. at 40-41.

3.Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza, G.R. No. 209132, June 5, 2017.

4. The exceptions are: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) When the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) When the CA's findings are contrary to those by the trial court; (h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Spouses Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corp., G.R. No. 156448, February 23, 2011)