SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231931. September 6, 2017.]
SPOUSES ANACLETA NAGALIZA AND FELIX LLANOS, SPOUSES ELEUTERIA NAGALIZA AND GENARO AGPASA, SPOUSES CONSORCIA NAGALIZA AND PIO JADUCANA, SPOUSES FILOMENA NAGALIZA AND INOCENTES AGPASA, SPOUSES ROSENDA NAGALIZA AND JESUSIMO BELLENO, AND SPOUSES VIRGILIO NAGALIZA AND MARIA BULAGAO, petitioners, vs.SPOUSES MANUEL Z. SUMALPONG AND TEOFANIA CANTURIAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 September 2017 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 231931 — Spouses Anacleta Nagaliza and Felix Llanos, Spouses Eleuteria Nagaliza and Genaro Agpasa, Spouses Consorcia Nagaliza and Pio Jaducana, Spouses Filomena Nagaliza and Inocentes Agpasa, Spouses Rosenda Nagaliza and Jesusimo Belleno, and Spouses Virgilio Nagaliza and Maria Bulagao versus Spouses Manuel Z. Sumalpong and Teofania Canturias
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated February 28, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 06571-MIN, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for lack of merit and AFFIRM the CA for failure to sufficiently show reversible error that would warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
A close examination of the Petition reveals that the issues tendered by the petitioners involve factual and evidentiary matters. It must be noted that the re-evaluation and recalibration of the evidence on record are outside the scope of the Court's discretionary power of review in Rule 45 petitions. While questions of fact have been entertained by the Court in justifiable circumstances, petitioners herein failed to establish that the instant case falls within the allowable exceptions. Hence, not being a trier of facts but of law, the Court defers CA's evaluation of the evidence, which was discussed at length in the assailed Decision.
Be that as it may, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the CA in ordering the annulment of the subject documents. The Court finds no cogent reason to overturn the concurrent findings of the inferior courts, which are accorded great weight and respect in Rule 45 petitions.
For the reasons foregoing, the Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-41. Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Maria Filomena D. Singh concurring.