FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214545. November 10, 2014.]
SPOUSES NEMESIO AND GERONIMA PACLAUNA, SPOUSES RODOLFO AND LEONILA GARCIA, SPOUSES MARLON AND NINA VISAGAS, SPOUSES RODULFO AND ALICIA PUBLICO, JULIA BONGCARAS, AND GENODRITA TABALOC, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES GALILEO LOZADA AND CONCEPCION VILLAFLOR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 10, 2014which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 214545 (Spouses Nemesio and Geronima Paclauna, Spouses Rodolfo and Leonila Garcia, Spouses Marlon and Nina Visagas, Spouses Rodulfo and Alicia Publico, Julia Bongcaras, and Genodrita Tabaloc v. Spouses Galileo Lozada and Concepcion Villaflor). — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the February 12, 2014 Decision 1 and August 28, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02844 for failure of Spouses Nemesio and Geronima Paclauna, Spouses Rodolfo and Leonila Garcia, Spouses Marlon and Nina Visagas, Spouses Rodulfo and Alicia Publico, Julia Bongcaras, and Genodrita Tabaloc (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding their ejectment from Lot No. 2846-G.
As correctly ruled by the CA, Spouses Galileo Lozada and Concepcion Villaflor (respondents-spouses), through the documents entitled Heirship and Sale executed by one Galicano L. Sibala and a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Confirmation of Sale executed by the heirs of Pilar Lozada, have proven their possessory right over the said lot. It is well-settled that factual findings of the Regional Trial Court, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight by the court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record. 3 Absent any exceptions to this rule — such as when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances that, if considered, would change the outcome of the case 4 — such findings must stand, as in this case.
Moreover, the CA was also correct in ruling that petitioners cannot impugn the validity of the title of respondents-spouses and their predecessors-in-interest over Lot No. 2846-G described in Transfer Certificate Title No. 18941, since it is tantamount to a collateral attack on such title, which is not allowed. 5
SO ORDERED."SERENO, C.J., on official travel; DEL CASTILLO, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1862 dated November 4, 2014. BERSAMIN, J., on official travel; VELASCO, JR., J., acting member per S.O. No. 1870 dated November 4, 2014.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 39-48A. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
2.Id. at 49-50. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
3.Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014, citations omitted.
4.People v. Anod, 613 Phil. 565, 572 (2009).
5. See Esmaquel v. Coprada, G.R. No. 152423, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 428.