G.R. No. 232144. August 30, 2017

FIRST DIVISION: [G.R. No. 232144, August 30, 2017] CEZAR P. ELLSON V. JANETTE LAMPERA AND PATRICIA B. LAMPERA.

This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and resolved to DENY the same for: (a) non-compliance with the required verification, the same being defective under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court for stating that the petition is true and correct based on petitioner's "own personal knowledge and belief;"[1] and (b) for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its Decision dated October 5, 2016 and Resolution dated June 1, 2017 and there being no special and important reason to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review pursuant to Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner insists, from his motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals to the instant petition, that respondents should have "first engage[d] the services of a certified Geodetic Engineer to determine the correct metes and bounds of [respondents'] property."[2]Petitioner likewise adds that the Regional Trial Court's issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against him "take[s the] property out of the possession and control of one party and [delivers] the same to the other party where possession of such property is being disputed."[3]

It may be well to point out that petitioner never questioned respondents' possession and control over the area where petitioner's roof is "protruding" or encroaching. During trial, the parties limited the issues to the following:
  1. Whether or not the protruding portion of the house of the [petitioner] which encroaches the property of the [respondents] should be removed[;]
  2. Whether or not [respondents] are entitled to damages and attorney's fees[;]
  3. Whether or not the house of [petitioner] has been constructed and finished as early as the year 2002 and has been occupied by them by way of the occupancy permit issued to them[; and]
  4. Whether or not [petitioner is] entitled to counterclaim and damages as well as attorney's fees.[4]
Thus, petitioner is precluded from questioning respondents' possession over the property. Petitioner even admits that "respondents are the owner[s] of the adjacent property"[5] and only questions the fact of overlapping. As the issue of overlapping is undoubtedly a question of fact, the same will not be discussed by this Court given that a petition for review on certiorari is not the proper forum for such, more so here where the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals are in accord with each other. Therefore, injunctive relief granted to the respondents does not dispossess petitioner of his property but merely orders him to remove a portion of his house's roof which encroaches on respondents' "house, space[,] or property."[6]

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the Decision dated October 5, 2016 and Resolution dated June 1, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105895.

Petitioner's counsel is directed to submit his contact details in accordance with A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC dated July 10, 2007 within five (5) days from notice. (CJ Sereno on leave; J. De Castro on official leave; J. Del Castillo designated Acting Chairperson of the First Division per S.O. No. 2476 dated August 29, 2017).

SO ORDERED.

[1] Rollo,p. 15.

[2] Id. at 7.

[3] Id. at 3.

[4] Id. at 23.

[5] Id. at 9.

[6] Id. at 22.

Popular Posts