SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236070. March 12, 2018.]
SPOUSES MELSON M. SOMO AND REMA B. SOMO, YOLANDA SOMO BAZAR, AMPARO SOMO TOPINO, AND DEXTER SOMO BAZAR, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ANGEL SUMAGPAO AND TERESITA SUMAGPAO [DECEASED], respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 March 2018which reads as follows: AScHCD
"G.R. No. 236070 (Spouses Melson M. Somo and Rema B. Somo, Yolanda Somo Bazar, Amparo Somo Topino, and Dexter Somo Bazar v. Spouses Angel Sumagpao and Teresita Sumagpao [deceased])
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the June 23, 2017 Decision 1 and October 20, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 05308 for failure of petitioners Spouses Melson M. Somo and Rema B. Somo, Yolanda Somo Bazar, Amparo Somo Topino, and Dexter Somo Bazar (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding respondents Spouses Angel Sumagpao and Teresita Sumagpao's (respondents) possessory right over the subject 400-square meter portion of Lot No. 3841, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 224474, issued in their names (subject property).
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents, as registered owners of the subject property, are entitled to possess the same. On the other hand, petitioners' bare invocation of ownership and/or inheritance, as well as respondents' void certificate of title, were not substantiated in evidence. It is settled that in civil cases, the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence, 3 which petitioners failed to do. Further, respondents' certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property. As registered owners, respondents have the right to evict any person occupying their property, and such right to evict illegal occupants is imprescriptible. Even if they were aware of petitioners' occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of their possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time. This right is never barred by laches. 4
Moreover, well-established is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal, save for certain exceptions, 5 none of which are obtaining in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-24. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Gabriel T. Robeniol concurring.
2.Id. at 26-32. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and Gabriel T. Robeniol concurring.
3.Otero v. Tan, 692 Phil. 714, 729 (2012).
4. See Tolentino v. Laurel, 682 Phil. 527, 540-541 (2012).
5.Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citation omitted.