SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236224. April 3, 2019.]
BYRON M. VIDAL AND SALINA M. VIDAL, petitioners, vs.EMMA HERNANDEZ, NERY HERNANDEZ, NANETTE HERNANDEZ, NUEL HERNANDEZ AND NEIL HERNANDEZ, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT CHARLES H. OBISPO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236224 — Byron M. Vidal and Salina M. Vidal versus Emma Hernandez, Nery Hernandez, Nanette Hernandez, Nuel Hernandez and Neil Hernandez, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact Charles H. Obispo
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Decision 1 dated July 27, 2016 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA), 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.
In the main, the petitioners argue that the lower courts and the appellate court misapprehended the evidence on record and that there is no valid cause of action for unlawful detainer.
It bears stressing that this Court is not a trier of facts and will not re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence on record. Factual findings of the CA, affirming that of both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), are therefore generally final and conclusive on this Court. 2 Otherwise stated, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the general rule is that the Court may only deal with questions of law and not questions of fact. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. 3
Undoubtedly, the issue raised by the petitioners, i.e., misapprehension of facts by the CA, RTC, and MeTC, is a question of fact that is not cognizable by the Court at this stage, in the absence of any compelling reason. The arguments posed by the petitioners patently call for the reassessment and reevaluation of purely factual and evidentiary matters which the Court cannot do at this stage. CAIHTE
There is no compelling reason to digress from the said rule. It must be noted that after the extensive trial conducted by the MeTC, as duly concurred by both the RTC and the CA, it was determined that the right of physical possession over the subject property belongs to the respondents. A perusal of the instant Petition readily reveals that the petitioners failed to provide any serious refutation and rebuttal of the factual and legal findings of the CA, RTC, and MeTC. The petitioners' assertion that there was no valid lease contract in the instant case is not substantiated by any evidence aside from their mere say-so.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 28-40. Penned by Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
2. See Cereno v. Court of Appeals, 695 Phil. 820, 828 (2012).
3.Leoncio v. De Vera, 569 Phil. 512, 516 (2008).