FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243828. April 1, 2019.]
SPOUSES BENITA LAMASAN AND RAFAEL LAMASAN (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY RENAN L. LAMASAN, GLORIA LAMASAN BALDEMOR, ARIEL L. LAMASAN, JR., VINCENT LAMASAN AND RAFAEL LAMASAN, JR., petitioners, vs.VICTORIA L. TABERNA, JULIAN LATON, SUBSTITUTED BY MARIA LATON, AND EDUARDO LATON, MATEA L. SALVA, PONITO LATON, CYNTHIA LATON RECABAR AND MA. AVE LATON, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 1, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243828 (Spouses Benita Lamasan and Rafael Lamasan (deceased), substituted by Renan L. Lamasan, Gloria Lamasan Baldemor, Ariel L. Lamasan, Jr., Vincent Lamasan and Rafael Lamasan, Jr. v. Victoria L. Taberna, Julian Laton, substituted by Maria Laton, and Eduardo Laton, Matea L. Salva, Ponito Laton, Cynthia Laton Recabar and Ma. Ave Laton) — The petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period. HTcADC
After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition due to petitioners' failure to: (1) submit a verified declaration that the pleading and annexes submitted electronically are complete and true copies of the printed document and annexes filed with the Supreme Court, pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC; 1 (2) comply with A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC requiring parties or their counsels to indicate in all their pleadings filed before the Supreme Court their contact details, pursuant to Section 5 (e) 2 of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court; and (3) sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its January 22, 2018 Decision 3 and November 16, 2018 Resolution, 4 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the subject property is a registered land covered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 173961 and registered in the names of respondents. As provided under Section 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, no title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. 5 Further, the CA properly held that petitioners were not purchasers in good faith and for value because at the time of the alleged sale, petitioners had notice that the subject property was co-owned. Accordingly, case law provides that a purchaser who has actual knowledge of any defect or other circumstance that would cause "a reasonably cautious man" to inquire into the title of the seller cannot be deemed a purchaser in good faith entitled to protection under the law. 6 CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the January 22, 2018 Decision and the November 16, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 05107 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Jardeleza, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC (Re: Proposed Rules on E-Filing) and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC (Re: Proposed Rule for the Efficient Use of Paper).
2.Section 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Failure to comply with any circular, directive or order of the Supreme Court without justifiable cause;
xxx xxx xxx.
3.Rollo, pp. 86-105; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
4.Id. at 118-120; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring.
5.Wee v. Mardo, 735 Phil. 420, 430 (2014).
6. See Spouses Aboitiz v. Spouses Po, 810 Phil. 123, 171 (2017).