SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237171. March 19, 2018.]
GLORIA TEMELO, petitioner,vs. SPOUSES JOSE AND TERESITA COLACION, SPOUSES NELSON AND MARIETA JORDA, AND SPOUSES RENATO AND ROSARIO ARQUELADA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 March 2018which reads as follows: TIADCc
"G.R. No. 237171 (Gloria Temelo v. Spouses Jose and Teresita Colacion, Spouses Nelson and Marieta Jorda, and Spouses Renato and Rosario Arquelada)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the July 20, 2017 Decision 1 and January 8, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08251 for failure of petitioner Gloria Temelo (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing her complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents Spouses Jose and Teresita Colacion, Spouses Nelson and Marieta Jorda, and Spouses Renato and Rosario Arquelada (respondents) over the subject property situated in Barangay Nanga, Guimbal, Iloilo.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to establish her right of possession over the subject property. While the issue of ownership in ejectment cases is merely provisional, evidence may be considered for the sole purpose of determining who between the parties has a better right of possession or possession de facto. 3 In this relation, other than the tax declaration issued in the name of Manuel Temelo, Jr. (Manuel), as heir to the subject property, the purported Extrajudicial Adjudication with Sale in Manuel's favor was not presented as evidence. On the other hand, respondents were able to preponderantly establish their rightful possession over the subject premises, as shown by the sale of the subject property by Ariston Gargantiel (Gargantiel) to respondents' mother Guadalupe Talimay, and after Gargantiel's demise in 1995, petitioner herself received payment for the sale as shown in her acknowledgment receipt dated June 6, 1995 in favor of respondent Teresita Colacion. Further, respondents' length of possession for more than 30 years and continued acts of dominion which were not opposed by petitioner, remained unrebutted. Corollarily, the court a quo correctly dismissed petitioner's complaint.
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 not be reviewed on appeal, save for certain exceptions, 4 none of which are obtaining in this case.
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. 16-26. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Edward B. Contreras concurring.
2.Id. at 27-28.
3. Jurisprudence teaches that the only issue in an ejectment case is the physical possession of real property — possession de facto and not possession de jure. But where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property. Thus, the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court correctly passed upon the issue of ownership in this case to determine the issue of possession. However, it must be emphasized that the adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property. (Spouses Dela Cruz v. Spouses Capco, 729 Phil. 624, 637 [2014]; citations omitted)
4.Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citation omitted.