FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240879. October 17, 2018.]
SPOUSES ALFREDO ROQUE AND FLORENCIA DC. ROQUE, petitioners, vs.LIBERATA DELA CRUZ PEREZ, RESTITUTO PEREZ, MERLEEN PEREZ PINIANO, AND MELISSA PEREZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 17, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240879 — Spouses Alfredo Roque and Florencia DC. Roque, Petitioners, vs. Liberata Dela Cruz Perez, Restituto Perez, Merleen Perez Piniano, and Melissa Perez, Respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' Motion for Extension 1 seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on August 15, 2018 within which to file their Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for: (a) failure to attach a valid affidavit of service to the Petition, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; 2(b) failure of petitioners' counsel to indicate his current IBP Official Receipt and Professional Tax Receipt numbers; and (c) failure of petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioners insist that, considering the allegations and admissions of the parties in their respective pleadings and submissions, there were no genuine issues as to any material fact which would have necessitated a full-blown trial of the case. 3 As such, the trial court committed a serious error in denying their Motion for Summary Judgment for lack of merit. ATICcS
It is settled that a summary judgment may only be had if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 4 In other words, "[w]hen the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in issue, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts." 5
In this case, the parties' pleadings plainly show that there were genuine issues of fact which called for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. As the CA aptly pointed out, petitioners' allegations of fraud and ownership over the half-portion of the subject property were wholly contested by respondents in their Answer. Given that there were clearly issues as to the material facts of the case, the trial court correctly denied petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment for lack of merit.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the August 31, 2017 Decision and the July 23, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148128.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals (First Division) and Honorable Reynaldo Tienzo are DELETED as party respondents in this case pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per S.O. No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member of the First Division per S.O. No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018. cSEDTC
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
2. The affidavit of service was notarized on August 14, 2018 when the actual date of posting of copies of the Petition on the Court of Appeals and adverse parties was on September 14, 2018.
3.Rollo, p. 24.
4. Nocom v. Camerino, 598 Phil. 214, 233 (2009).
5. Id.