SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232924. April 10, 2019.]
SPOUSES CONRADO VALENCIA AND ANDRIANA GADIANO AND SPOUSES TEODORO VALENCIA AND ANDREA COSTELO, petitioners, vs.JESUS CAUBAT, DECEASED, SUCCEEDED BY JOSELYN, IMELDA, WILMA AND MINDA ALL SURNAMED CAUBAT; ARTEMIO CAUBAT, DECEASED, SUCCEEDED BY MERLINDA, RAMIL, ANALYN, ERIC, REYNALDO AND ARRORIZ, ALL SURNAMED CAUBAT; FERNANDO CAUBAT, DECEASED, SUCCEEDED BY LILIA, FREDDIE, HELEN AND GEBIE, ALL SURNAMED CAUBAT; AND ALBERTO POLIDO, DECEASED, SUCCEEDED BY LEONILA, JOHN REY, GENEVE, JINKY, JECYL AND ALBERTO, JR., ALL SURNAMED POLIDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232924 — Spouses Conrado Valencia and Andriana Gadiano and Spouses Teodoro Valencia and Andrea Costelo versus Jesus Caubat, deceased, succeeded by Joselyn, Imelda, Wilma and Minda all surnamed Caubat; Artemio Caubat, deceased, succeeded by MerLinda, Ramil, Analyn, Eric, Reynaldo and Arroriz, all surnamed Caubat; Fernando Caubat, deceased, succeeded by Lilia, Freddie, Helen and Gebie, all surnamed Caubat; and Alberto Polido, deceased, succeeded by Leonila, John Rey, Geneve, Jinky, Jecyl and Alberto, Jr., all surnamed Polido
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated March 23, 2016 and Resolution 2 dated June 1, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 03936, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error that warrants the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
After a careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court finds that the petitioners failed to provide any cogent argument substantiating their claim that they have a better right to possess the subject property, in light of the undisputed fact that Emancipation Patents under Presidential Decree No. 27 were issued in favor of the respondents. Further, the petitioners' argument that the respondents' claim over the subject property had already prescribed is unmeritorious, considering that the respondents never truly abandoned their right over the subject property, as factually found by the CA.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-39. Penned by Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig concurring.
2.Id. at 45-46.