ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 143420. October 4, 2000]

JUAN CARVAJAL vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 4 2000.

G.R. No. 143420 (Juan Carvajal vs. Court of Appeals, Special Former Second Division, Hon. Lorenzo A. Querubin, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC, Antipolo City, et al.)

Before this Court is a petition seeking the nullification of two Resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals on August 3, 1999 and May 25, 2000.

The facts are as follows:

On October 9, 1997, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision, 1 In G.R. No. 98328, penned by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban. denying Juan C. Carvajal's petition to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The latter court upheld the trial court 2 LRC Case No. 414(-A), LRC Record No. N-60084 filed before Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, Branch 71. in dismissing petitioner's application for registration of title of a parcel of land in Antipolo City. The Court recognized respondent Solid Homes, Inc. as the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. N-7873, situated in Antipolo City.

On May 13, 1998, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City a complaint for annulment of title with damages against private respondent.

Petitioner allegedly acquired portions of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. N-7873 by inheritance from his father Felix Carvajal who came to possess the unregistered land in 1938, continuously, openly, adversely and peacefully in the concept of an owner up to the time of his death.

On August 12, 1998, the trial court dismissed petitioner's complaint.

On August 3, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued the questioned resolution. The decretal portion reads:

"WHEREFORE, for being insufficient in form and substance, the petition for certiorari should be, as it is hereby, DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED." 3 Rollo , pp. 35-36.

The petition revealed that petitioner failed to comply with Rule 46, Section 3, par. 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the statement of the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for the new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received.

On May 25, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this Petition. 4 Filed on July 7, 2000.

We rule on denying the petition because the issues raised are factual.

This Court is not a trier of facts. 5 Blanco vs. Quasha, G.R. No. 133148, November 17, 1999. Well-settled is the rule that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect, and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstance which would substantially affect the disposition of the case. 6 American Home Assurance Company vs. Chua, G.R. No. 130421, 309 SCRA 250 (1999), citing Borillo vs. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 130, 140 (1992); Gobonsong, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 472, 474-475 (1995); Vda. De Alcantara vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 457, 468 (1996). We see no reason to depart from this ruling.

There would be no end to litigations if parties who unsuccessfully availed themselves of any of the appropriate remedies or lost them through their fault would still be heard. 7 Linzag vs. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 304 (1998).

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED.

The Court further Resolves to:

(a) GRANT the motion of private respondent for a second extension of five (5) days from September 5, 2000 within which to file a comment on the petition for review on certiorari; and

(b) NOTE the said comment thereafter filed.

No costs.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE