FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242833. March 25, 2019.]
SPOUSES EDGARDO PANALIGAN AND ROSITA PANALIGAN, petitioners, vs.MARIA ELENA P. SEQUITIN, REPRESENTED BY MARIA FE L. PANALIGAN AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 25, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242833 — Spouses Edgardo Panaligan and Rosita Panaligan, Petitioners, vs. Maria Elena P. Sequitin, represented by Maria Fe L. Panaligan as Attorney-in-Fact, Respondent.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period on November 21, 2018 within which to file their petition.
The Court further resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed April 18, 2018 Decision and October 19, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 148836 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the CA's Decision and Resolution are in accord with the facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence.
The CA correctly upheld both the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and Regional Trial Court (RTC) that respondent had the better right of possession since she was able to present a title to the property that was registered in her name. As registered owner of the subject property, respondent merely tolerated the possession of the petitioners. Thus, when petitioners refused to vacate the premises when they were asked to do so, their possession became unlawful.
Moreover, the validity of respondent's title cannot be attacked in an ejectment proceeding. The Court has consistently held that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or canceled except in a direct proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law. The issue of the validity of respondent's title can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose and is beyond the power of the trial court to determine in an action for unlawful detainer.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the April 18, 2018 Decision and October 19, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148836. ITAaHc
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official business; Carandang, J., no part; Carpio, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 18, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court