G.R. No. 229808. July 26, 2017

FIRST DIVISION  [ G.R. No. 229808, July 26, 2017 ]  UNI-ORIENT PEARL VENTURES, INC., REPRESENTED BY JOHN C. KO, VS. WT CONSTRUCTION, INC.

The Court resolved to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period of February 28, 2017 within which to file its Petition for Review on Certiorari. After carefully reviewing the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolved to DENY the same for: (i) raising factual issues; and, (ii) failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its September 16, 2016 Decision and January 27, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 140910.

It is settled that only questions of law may be raised before this Court in. a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules. This Court is not a trier of facts and its jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the tribunals below. In this case, a perusal of the issues raised by the petitioner readily reveals that what it seeks from this Court is the re-examination of evidentiary and factual matters. Thus:

VIII. ISSUES
36. It is most respectfully submitted that the issues to be resolved in the instant case are as follows:
36.1
Whether or not due recognition must be made upon the sketch plans and/or maps executed by Engr. Apolinar Agustin.
36.2
Whether or not the danger to maritime navigation must be recognized considering the sketch plans and/or maps mentioned above.
36.3
Whether or not the legal concept that findings of administrative agencies are entitled to weight and respect is absolute.
36.4
Whether or not the rule on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions is also not absolute.
IX. DISCUSSION

37. The assignment of errors and issues cited above shall be discussed jointly hereunder.[l]
While the foregoing rule admits of exceptions, none applies in this case.

Besides, the ruling of the CA appears to be in accord with the facts and the applicable laws and jurisprudence. As correctly pointed out by the CA, the parties' Special Land Use-Other Lawful Purpose Permit (SLUP) merely gave them the privilege to occupy a portion of public forest land in Consolacion, Cebu. On December 31, 2011, however, said SLUPs expired together with their privilege to occupy said public forest. Consequently, the November 22, 2011 Order of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Regional Office VII holding that the area covered by petitioner's SLUP should not be disturbed had been mooted by the expiration of said SLUP.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the September 16, 2016 Decision and January 27, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 140910.

SO ORDERED.

[1] Rollo, p. 16.

Popular Posts