SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226882. January 7, 2019.]
DELIA G. VILLADORES, petitioner,vs. LEONIDA CINCO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 January 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226882 (Delia G. Villadores v. Leonida Cinco)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 31, 2016 Decision 2 and the August 15, 2016 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104815 for failure of petitioner Delia G. Villadores (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the findings of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216 (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q-08-62209 which found petitioner and her late husband, Victoriano Villadores (Victoriano; collectively, Spouses Villadores), to have failed to prove their cause of action against respondent Leonida Cinco (respondent).
At the outset, it bears stressing that the issue of whether or not Spouses Villadores were able to establish their cause of action by preponderant evidence is a question of fact, 4 which is not the proper subject of this Court's discretionary power of judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 5 In any event, the CA did not err in affirming the findings of the RTC. The burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations. 6 The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's. 7 Here, it was incumbent upon petitioner to show, by preponderance of evidence, the existence of respondent's obligation to pay, which she failed to do. As both the CA and the RTC correctly pointed out, the totality of petitioner's evidence, including Victoriano's own testimony, revealed several inconsistencies which cast serious doubt on the credibility of her claims against respondent in the amount of P455,725.00. 8 Settled is the rule that factual findings of the lower courts are accorded respect and are beyond the Court's review, save for exceptional circumstances, 9 which do not obtain in this case.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-28.
2.Id. at 35-49. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
3.Id. at 51-52.
4.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Ley Construction and Development Corporation, 749 Phil. 257, 269 (2014).
5.Mangahas v. CA, 588 Phil. 61, 76 (2008).
6.Go Tong Electrical Supply Co., Inc. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., 762 Phil. 89, 101 (2015).
7.Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 198799, March 20, 2017, 821 SCRA 41, 50.
8. See rollo, pp. 43-44 and 130-132.
9. See Spouses Aboitiz v. Spouses Po, G.R. Nos. 208450 and 208497, June 5, 2017, 825 SCRA 457, 499.