Sevigan v. Samillano (G.R. No. 218678)

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 218678. Henry, Johnson, Nelson, and Suzette, all surnamed Sevigan, and Ana, Gaspar, Cesar, Oscar, Elmer, Jenette, Nonette, and Lorenzo M., all surnamed Samillano v. Lorenzo Samillano and Ma. Flor B. Relies. August 5, 2015.

The Cash Collection and Disbursement Division is directed to RETURN to the petitioners the excess amount of P470.00 paid for filing fees under O.R. No. 0116296-SC-EP dated July 7, 2015.

After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the October 29, 2014 Decision[1] and May 13, 2015 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 03887 for failure of petitioners Henry, Johnson, Nelson, and Suzette, all surnamed Sevigan,.et al. to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of their complaint for utter lack of merit.

As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent Lorenzo Samillano (Lorenzo) was able to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that: (a) he solely acquired the subject properties from his father even before his marriage to Teresa Tandoy; and (b) he validly sold and transferred the lots to respondent Ma. Flor B. Relies. It is well-entrenched that the burden of proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right in the case.[3] In the instant case, Lorenzo presented more convincing evidence worthy of belief than that which was offered in opposition thereto.

Furthermore, it is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight and respect, unless there are facts of weight and substance that were overlooked or misinterpreted and that would materially affect the disposition of the case,[4] which does not obtain in this case.

[1] Rollo, pp. 52-71. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring.
[2] Id. At 72-74.
[3] Ogawa v. Menigishi, G.R. No. 193089, July 9, 2012, 676 SCRA 14, 21.
[4] See Almojuela v. People, G.R. No. 183202, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 293, 307-308; citations omitted.

Popular Posts