FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241696. January 10, 2019.]
LALAINE S. ZAPLAN, petitioner,vs. AUCTION IN MALINTA, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 10, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241696 — Lalaine S. Zaplan, Petitioner, vs. Auction in Malinta, Inc., Respondent.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file her Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, arguments, and issues in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for the following reasons: (1) the petition lacks P995.00 for the Sheriff's Trust Fund, the amount remitted being only P3,535.00; (2) the petition lacks verified statement as to the dates of receipt of assailed decision and of filing of motion for reconsideration; and (3) petitioner failed to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated April 21, 2017 and Resolution dated July 25, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 107219 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the CA's Decision and Resolution are in accord with the facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence.
The CA correctly held that petitioner's spouse was not an indispensable party in this case since their (husband and wife) obligation to pay the purchase price of the trucks was solidary. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the trucks and its accessories which petitioner bought from respondent redounded to the benefit of their family and as a consequence, the community property is liable for the same. Since the obligation is solidary, respondent can proceed against the petitioner alone without need of impleading her husband.
Moreover, the CA was correct in finding that the petitioner is liable for the face value of the 18 dishonored checks she issued in payment of the trucks and its accessories purchased from the respondent. Petitioner has herself to blame for failing to appear during pre-trial and to file her pre-trial brief which resulted in her forfeiting the opportunity to present her own evidence to rebut that of respondent's.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the April 21, 2017 Decision and July 25, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107219.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court