ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139861. September 29, 1999]

SPS. GARCIA vs. DUMALAG

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 29 1999.

G.R. No. 139861 (Sps. Ernesto Garcia and Ernesto Garcia vs. Natividad Dumalag.)

Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the regional trial court, thus, declaring private respondent as the owner of the house and lot described as Lot 3 Block 32 of the consolidated subdivision plan LRC (PCS-2166, Tagbilaran Cadastre, LRC Cad. Rec. No. 1101), situated in Tagbilaran City.

The present controversy sprung from an action for quieting of title and recovery of possession which was filed by private respondent against petitioners.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court decided in favor of private respondent.

Displeased, petitioners appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modification by increasing the amount of rentals from P100.00 to P200.00 per month any by deleting the award for litigation expenses and attorney's fees.

Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.

Initially, the Court notes that a certified true copy of the assailed decision is not annexed to the petition. Then, the statement of material dates is incomplete, as the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration is not stated. Lastly, the petition lacks the required affidavit and proof of service upon the Court of Appeals and the adverse party. Any one of these flaws is sufficient to cause the outright dismissal of the instant petition.

Even if the Court were minded to set aside the abovementioned technical lapses, the petition must still fail.

Petitioners' assertion that they are builders in good faith and, therefore, entitled to reimbursement on improvements is belied by their own admission that they entered the subject premises solely on the assurance of a certain Gallardo, the manager of LA Enterprises, which owns the subdivision where the subject property is located. Petitioners failed to present any validating papers to support their claim. Moreover, petitioners occupied the subject premises and stayed there for years without paying a single centavo either to LA Enterprises or to the GSIS which had in the meantime foreclosed the property. It is worth stressing that petitioner Ernesto Garcia is a 2nd year law student and a probation officer and, therefore, not a stranger to the law; and as correctly ratiocinated, petitioners cannot gratuitously sashay and stay for years in a house without any payment made or papers held and still claim that they believed in good faith that they were the rightful owners and possessors thereof. Good faith is precluded if the ignorance is self-inflicted through refusal to know or to face up to reality.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED. (GONZAGA-REYES, J., no part, as she was the Chairman of Special Third Division of the Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed decision.)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE