FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242193. March 25, 2019.]
SPOUSES ALLAN F. SABADO AND MARIA CYNTHIA L. SABADO, petitioners, vs.TERESITA SOLDEVILLA, 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. 242193 — Spouses Allan F. Sabado and Maria Cynthia L. Sabado, petitioners, vs. Teresita Soldevilla, respondent.
Petitioners' motion for extension of 15 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition is GRANTED.
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED due to: (1) lack of verified statement as to the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision; (2) lack of material portions of the record (i.e., Complaint and other pleadings filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), RTC Decision dated May 26, 2015, etc.) which would support the allegations in the petition as required under Section 4 (d), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and (3) failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed decision and resolution of the CA as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in modifying the RTC Decision based on the finding that respondent was a builder in good faith. They claim that respondent, on the contrary, acted in bad faith when she constructed her house and encroached upon their property. This is considering that respondent failed to present evidence to support her allegation that she secured all the necessary documents before proceeding with the construction. Moreover, respondent failed to immediately take corrective action regarding the encroachment after petitioners informed her about it.
Suffice it to state that the existence of bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary. It requires the reviewing court to look into the evidence to find out if there was indeed substantial proof to show bad faith. However, this Court is not a trier of facts and is not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the courts below. 1 The petition, thus, fails because it raises a question of fact which is not within the ambit of a petition for review on certiorari. At any rate, the RTC and the CA are one in their findings that respondent was a builder in good faith. "[F]actual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on this Court." 2 Hence, the Court is not inclined to depart from these findings.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed January 30, 2018 Decision 3 and September 18, 2018 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 106304.
Further, petitioners' counsel is directed to submit within five (5) days from notice his contact details (i.e., telephone number, cellphone number, and/or email address) pursuant to A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC dated July 10, 2007. ASEcHI
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official business; Carandang, J., no part; Leonen, J., designated as Additional Member per Raffle dated February 6, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Meyr Enterprises Corporation v. Cordero, G.R. No. 197336, September 3, 2014.
2.Republic of the Philippines v. C. C. Unson Company, Inc., G.R. No. 215107, February 24, 2016.
3.Rollo, pp. 15-26; penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court) and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
4.Id. at 27-29.