Accordingly, David submitted his Compliance [40] with attached Amended Petition [41] (Third Amended Petition) dated December 17, 2018. This time, David estimated the value of the conjugal assets in the amount of PHP 284,311,155.00 and listed more conjugal properties. The Third Amended Petition also included an additional statement concerning the list of conjugal assets therein provided: 5.3. Petitioner [David] declares the foregoing list of properties as those vbgproperties (sic), to the best of his knowledge, which are part of the conjugal list of assets of Petitioner [David] and Respondent [Belinda]. However, such declaration should not, in any manner, be construed as an admission of what comprises the conjugal partnership of the parties nor a limitation as to what is conjugal. Non-mention of any property which turns out to be conjugal property shall NOT automatically be considered as paraphernal or exclusive to either of the parties. Petitioner reserves the right to adduce evidence should it be necessary to prove that a particular piece of property is either conjugal or paraphernal/exclusive in nature. [42] In the meantime, Belinda filed another Motion for Special Order [43] (Second Motion for Special Order), wherein she prayed for the RTC to authorize her (1) to sell Units 14-A, 14-B, 14-D, 14-E, 15-B, 15-D, and 15-E of Foggy Heights (collectively, subject properties); and (2) to sign the necessary Deeds of Sale without the participation of David. In the Motion, Belinda reiterated the admission made by David that all properties not listed in the First Amended Petition are deemed paraphernal. Belinda also asserted that because of David's delays, the subject properties have started to deteriorate, which necessitated repairs. Belinda averred that she could use the proceeds from the sale of the units for their repair and refurbishment. In the Order [44] dated October 24, 2018, the RTC denied the Second Motion for Special Order. It stated that there is nothing in its earlier Order dated May 29, 2017, that authorizes Belinda to sell units in Foggy Heights other than Unit 15-A. It ruled that David should be given his day in court to argue on the issue of whether the subject properties are conjugal or paraphernal. Belinda sought a reconsideration [45] of the foregoing Order, but the RTC denied it in the Order [46] dated November 27, 2018. Aggrieved, Belinda assailed the RTC Orders dated October 24, 2018, November 16, 2018, and November 27, 2018, (collectively, assailed RTC Orders) by filing her Rule 65 Petition [47] for certiorari with the CA. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals In the Decision [48] dated October 18, 2021, the CA denied the Rule 65 Petition for lack of merit: The Petition dated 21 January 2019 is DENIED for lack of merit. IT IS SO ORDERED.