FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235948. April 4, 2018.]
SPOUSES DOMINADOR AND MYRNA SANTIAGO, AND ZENAIDA CRUZ, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES IGNACIO AND HELEN SANTIAGO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018which reads as follows: DcHSEa
"G.R. No. 235948 — Spouses Dominador and Myrna Santiago, and Zenaida Cruz vs. Spouses Ignacio and Helen Santiago
Petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time of 30 days within which to file the petition is GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for raising factual issues and for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioners insist that the subject property is different from that being claimed by respondents. The resolution of this issue, however, entails an examination of factual matters. It bears stressing that "[q]uestions of fact, which would require a re-evaluation of the evidence, are inappropriate under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction of the Court under [the said rule] is limited only to errors of law as the Court is not a trier of facts." 1
Petitioners also contend that the lower courts should not have given credence to the "Pagkakaloob ng Isang Parselang Lupa" executed by Enrique Santiago (Enrique) in favor of respondent Ignacio Santiago (Ignacio) as Enrique was not the owner of the subject property. Again, this issue involves a question of fact. At any rate, it must be stressed that the objective of an accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership. 2 Moreover, the CA aptly held, that even assuming that the said document is void, the same, coupled by prior possession of the subject property, sufficiently served as basis for respondents' better right of possession as compared to petitioners who did not adduce even a single evidence to support their claim. 3 SCaITA
In fine, the Court sees no reason to overturn the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA. Both courts uniformly ruled that respondents have the better right of possession over the disputed property. As has been held, "the factual findings of the lower courts, if supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and even finality by [this Court]." 4
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed August 29, 2017 5 Decision and November 24, 2017 6 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 106730.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Gatan v. Vinarao, G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017.
2.Gabriel v. Crisologo, 735 Phil. 673, 683 (2014).
3. Citing Heirs of Laurora v. Sterling Technopark III, 449 Phil. 181 (2003).
4.Ocampo v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 227894, July 5, 2017.
5.Rollo, pp. 42-49; penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
6.Id. at 55-56.