SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 168499. March 20, 2013.]
SPOUSES EROSTO SANTIAGO AND NELSIE SANTIAGO, petitioners, vs. MANCER VILLAMOR, CARLOS VILLAMOR, JOHN VILLAMOR AND DOMINGO VILLAMOR, JR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 20 March 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 168499 (Spouses Erosto Santiago and Nelsie Santiago v. Mancer Villamor, Carlos Villamor, John Villamor and Domingo Villamor, Jr.). — Before us is the motion for reconsideration 1 of the November 26, 2012 Decision, 2 denying the petitioner spouses Erosto Santiago and Nelsie Santiago's petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit and ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 201 before the Regional Trial Court of San Jacinto, Masbate, Branch 50.
The petitioners insist that they are buyers in good faith and they advert to the alleged injustice they would suffer should their claim be set aside.
We find no sound and substantial reason to reconsider our November 26, 2012 Decision.
The issue and the discussion on the petitioners' being buyers in good faith raised in their motion are mere rehashes of an argument already raised and considered in our resolution on the petition. A further discussion of this issue would not serve any useful purpose; it would simply be a repetition of the justifications and reasons taken up in the outright dismissal of the petition.
We reiterate that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith; mere invocation of the legal presumption of good faith is insufficient. Since the spouses Domingo Villamor, Sr. and Trinidad Gutierrez-Villamor were not in possession of the land, the petitioners, as prospective vendees, were obliged to investigate the rights of respondents Mancer Villamor, Carlos Villamor, John Villamor and Domingo Villamor, Jr., being actual possessors of the land. In addition, the claimed injustice of an unfavorable ruling does not exist since the vendee may proceed against his vendor for recovery should the latter's title turn out to be defective. Thus, the petitioners are not precluded from seeking to recover from the Spouses Villamor, Sr. the amounts paid for the lot, plus damages. aHSTID
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 229-240.
2.Id. at 207-216.