Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > April 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. L-62021 April 6, 1990 - FLORA LAURON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-62021. April 6, 1990.]

FLORA LAURON, ANUNCIACION LAURON, RAFAEL LAURON, PEDRO LAURON, SALVADOR LAURON, FLORITA LAURON, ENRIQUE LAURON, AURELIO LAURON, JULIETA LIRADO, CORAZON LIRADO, LEONOR LIRADO; and EMMA, RUFINO, JR., and METCHEL, all surnamed LIRADO, represented by JULIETA LIRADO, as their guardian ad litem, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, ANDRES LACUESTA LOOT and IRENEO LATOG, Respondents.

Eurenio G. Gemarino, for Petitioners.

Enojas, Defensor Law Office for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS OF COURT OF APPEALS; NOT REVIEWABLE BY SUPREME COURT. — It is apparent that the decision of the Court of Appeals turned upon the basic issue of the comparative weight of the parties’ respective proofs in substantiation of their conflicting claims of title to the lots in question. This circumstance bars a review of its judgment by this Court. To be sure, the Trial Courts differs with the Court of Appeals as regards and interpretation and appreciation of the evidence. No persuasive argument has however been put forth to show why the former’s findings should be accepted in preference to the latter’s. Indeed, the analysis by the Court of Appeals of the evidence on record, and the process by which it arrived at its findings on the basis thereof, impel conferment of this Court’s approval on said findings, on account of the intrinsic merit and cogency thereof no less than that Court’s superior status as a review tribunal. What the petitioners are now essaying in this Court is to give to essentially factual issues the appearance of legal questions. They pose such questions, for instance, as whether the Court of Appeals "can reverse the findings of fact of the lower court (which) . . . are well-supported by the evidence on record . . . (and) stipulated facts," and whether "the factual findings of the . . . Court of Appeals based on incompetent evidence is an error in law subject to . . . review by the . . . Supreme Court." It need only be pointed out that the premises assumed as true in these questions — i.e., that the evidence does support the trial court’s factual conclusions, while those of the appellate court do indeed rest on incompetent proofs — are themselves factual propositions at issue in this case, and without inquiring into the validity of those assumptions, the "legal issues" arising therefrom cannot be resolved. At bottom, therefore, the petitioners seek this Court’s ruling on what they allege to be errors of the Court of Appeals in the appreciation of the evidence. They seek an opportunity to persuade this Court of the correctness of their own version of the facts. That they cannot have in this forum. Factual conclusions of Court of Appeals are not reviewable. There are, to be sure, exceptions to the rule, but none has been shown to obtain here.


D E C I S I O N


NARVASA, J.:


In this case there is once again an attempt to have this Court review and reverse factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals. This the Court will not do, as it has in so many instances in the past declined to do. For it is a long established and observed axiom that subject only to a few well defined exceptions, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive even on this Court and are not therefore reviewable by it. 1

The factual conclusions which petitioners wish reviewed are set forth in the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 12, 1982 in CA-G.R. No. 65492-R, entitled "Flora Lauron, Et. Al. v. Andres Loot, Et. Al." 2 That decision reversed the judgment of the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo rendered on September 16, 1978 in Civil Case No. 7842 entitled "Flora Lauron, Et. Al. v. Andres Lacuesta Loot, Et. Al." 3

The verdict of the Court of Appeals was arrived at after an extensive review of the evidence presented by the parties at the trial on the fundamental issue of the origin and ownership of three (3) lots located at Barrio Bondoc, Lambunao, Iloilo. These lots are identified as Lots 4888, 5656 and 5655 of the Lambunao Cadastre, with respective areas of 87,802 square meters, 13,257 square meters, and 12,270 square meters.

Claiming to be the owners thereof, the petitioners, Flora Lauron, Et Al., brought suit in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to vindicate their title and recover the lots from their possessors, namely: Andres Loot, as regards Lots 4888 and 5656, and defendant Rene Latog, as regards Lot 5655. According to the petitioners, they were owners of the property by inheritance from their late grandfather Maximo Legarda.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Both Andres Loot and Rene Latog denied the petitioners’ pretensions to the property. Andres Loot claimed ownership of the land sought to be recovered from him (Lots 4888 and 5656), and of much more besides, by inheritance from his deceased predecessor, Lupo Loot who, in his lifetime, and over a period extending from 1929 to 1945, had acquired title to land with an aggregate area of 1,571,358 square meters. Rene Latog also claimed title to Lot 5655, grounded on a deed of sale executed in his favor on December 12, 1964 by a certain Jaime Limoso, which deed Latog had registered in accordance with the provisions of Act 3344 on December 29, 1972, and said Limoso having, in turn, acquired the property from Andres Loot by deed dated May 20, 1958.

The Court of Appeals adjudged the evidence of petitioners Lauron, Et. Al. to be inferior to Loot’s and Latog’s proofs. It opined that other than a tax declaration (No. 3969) — the probative value of which was considerably reduced by the claims of others over the same property therein described, as shown, e.g., by Tax Declaration No. 12222 in the name of other persons, covering properties east of the Casibucawan Creek which petitioners claim to be theirs under said Tax Declaration No. 3969 — and a plan of dubious veracity which had never been approved by the Bureau of Lands and was demonstrably inaccurate — the petitioners had not presented any persuasive proof of their ownership of the lots in dispute. In truth, said that Court, the testimony of a disinterested witness, Judith Latosa, belied material aspects of petitioners’ evidence.

On the other hand, in the Appellate Court’s view, Loot and Latog had established by preponderance of evidence the validity of their claims of title. According to the Court, the testimonial evidence by them adduced, corroborated by documents not shown to be other than authentic, prove that Lots 4888 and 5656 are part of a 30-hectare property purchased by Lupo Loot from the spouses Encarnacion Lorca and Operiano Bereno in virtue of a deed of sale executed as early as 1929, and that the realty taxes on the property had been continuously paid by the Loots and their predecessor-in-interest. As regards Lot 5655, the Court of Appeals declared that the evidence on record sufficiently established that it had been purchased by Rene Latog from Jaime Limoso in virtue of a deed dated October 12, 1964, that the sale had been registered under Act 3344 on December 29, 1972, and that Limoso had earlier acquired the land from Andres Loot by virtue of a Deed of Adjudication with Sale on May 20, 1958, which sale was also registered pursuant to Act 3344.

It should thus be apparent that the decision of the Court of Appeals turned upon the basic issue of the comparative weight of the parties’ respective proofs in substantiation of their conflicting claims of title to the lots in question. This circumstance bars a review of its judgment by this Court.

To be sure, the Trial Courts differs with the Court of Appeals as regards and interpretation and appreciation of the evidence. No persuasive argument has however been put forth to show why the former’s findings should be accepted in preference to the latter’s. Indeed, the analysis by the Court of Appeals of the evidence on record, and the process by which it arrived at its findings on the basis thereof, impel conferment of this Court’s approval on said findings, on account of the intrinsic merit and cogency thereof no less than that Court’s superior status as a review tribunal.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

What the petitioners are now essaying in this Court is to give to essentially factual issues the appearance of legal questions. They pose such questions, for instance, as whether the Court of Appeals "can reverse the findings of fact of the lower court (which) . . . are well-supported by the evidence on record . . . (and) stipulated facts," and whether "the factual findings of the . . . Court of Appeals based on incompetent evidence is an error in law subject to . . . review by the . . . Supreme Court." It need only be pointed out that the premises assumed as true in these questions — i.e., that the evidence does support the trial court’s factual conclusions, while those of the appellate court do indeed rest on incompetent proofs — are themselves factual propositions at issue in this case, and without inquiring into the validity of those assumptions, the "legal issues" arising therefrom cannot be resolved. At bottom, therefore, the petitioners seek this Court’s ruling on what they allege to be errors of the Court of Appeals in the appreciation of the evidence. They seek an opportunity to persuade this Court of the correctness of their own version of the facts. That they cannot have in this forum.

As was pointed out in this opinion’s first paragraph, factual conclusions of Court of Appeals are not reviewable. There are, to be sure, exceptions to the rule, but none has been shown to obtain here.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Manlapaz v. C.A., Et Al., 147 SCRA 236; Maclan v. Santos, 156 SCRA 542; Remalante v. Tibe, 158 SCRA 138; Hernandez v. C.A., Et Al., 160 SCRA 821; Apex Investment and Financing Corp. v. I.A.C., G.R. No. 69723, Oct. 18, 1988; Republic v. C.A., G.R. No. 62680, Dec. 8, 1988; Reynolds Phil. Corp. v. C.A., G.R. No. 38187, Jan. 17, 1989; France v. C.A., G.R. No. 76093, March 21, 1989; SSS v. C.A., L-46192, Aug. 29, 1989.

2. The judgment was written for the Court of Hon. Rodolfo A. Nocon (then Associate, now Presiding, Justice of the Court of Appeals), with whom concurred Pascual and Sison, JJ.,

3. The decision was rendered by Hon. Ricardo M. Ilarde, then presiding over Branch V of said Court of First Instance of Iloilo.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47991 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALDEGUER

  • G.R. No. 49856 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAYBAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59154 April 3, 1990 - MERIDIAN ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61965 April 3, 1990 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63225 April 3, 1990 - ELEAZAR V. ADLAWAN v. VALERIANO P. TOMOL

  • G.R. No. 75619 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

  • G.R. No. 77397 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO P. JOMAO-AS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81026 April 3, 1990 - PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81493 April 3, 1990 - SUPERSTAR SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82112 April 3, 1990 - ROSA SABADLAN VALENCIA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 90, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86164 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR SIMENE

  • G.R. No. 88724 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEILITO ORITA

  • G.R. No. 89318 April 3, 1990 - MARIANO R. SANTIAGO v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91096 April 3, 1990 - CAPRICORN INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69386 April 4, 1990 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46208 April 5, 1990 - FIDELITY SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63735 April 5, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO MALINAO

  • G.R. No. L-64735 April 5, 1990 - ATLAS DEVELOPER & STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SARMIENTO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72194 April 5, 1990 - HEIRS OF CLARO L. LAURETA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75640 April 5, 1990 - NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990 - IN RE: ROSITA LABRADOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84324 April 5, 1990 - SANTIAGO AQUINO, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO R. LUNTOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42281 April 6, 1990 - GODOFREDA B. SUMALINOG v. CORAZON Q. DORONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46364 April 6, 1990 - SULPICIA JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47422 April 6, 1990 - ILDEFONSA CERDON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57025 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO C. ARSENIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62021 April 6, 1990 - FLORA LAURON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63630 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDEL B. TANGLIBEN

  • G.R. No. 76028 April 6, 1990 - SPS. JOSE R. LANSANG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76213 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBY RONQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 85611 April 6, 1990 - VICTORIANO ZAMORAS v. ROQUE SU, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86728 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS VARGAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 87203 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL DAWANDAWAN

  • G.R. No. 87245 April 6, 1990 - UNIVERSAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87617 April 6, 1990 - JOE HODGES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88400 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL GUINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88602 April 6, 1990 - TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51973 April 16, 1990 - ELY CHAN SA VELASCO v. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35205 April 17, 1990 - NATIVIDAD VILLAFLOR v. JOSE JUEZAN

  • G.R. No. L-47916 April 17, 1990 - HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60323 April 17, 1990 - MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69816 April 17, 1990 - POLICARPIO Y. FAUSTO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70393 April 17, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO LATI

  • G.R. No. 71889 April 17, 1990 - SOCORRO VDA. DE MONDRAGON, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74203 April 17, 1990 - JOSE T. TAYOTO, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF CABALO KUSOP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75773 April 17, 1990 - TOMAS JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76838 April 17, 1990 - LUALHATI A. COJUANGCO v. PURIFICACION VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88537 April 17, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-425 April 17, 1990 - OSCAR PALMA PAGASIAN v. CESAR P. AZURA

  • G.R. No. 76100 April 18, 1990 - SALEM ALEX T. PALO v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE

  • G.R. No. 77755 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO P. CONSUELO

  • G.R. No. 82375 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83260 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN G. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88550 April 18, 1990 - INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85742 April 19, 1990 - JESUS F. SALAZAR, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70835 April 20, 1990 - ROGELIO P. CELI, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78750 April 20, 1990 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JOSE V. NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. 86220 April 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO P. CIOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88561 April 20, 1990 - HERMAN ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89604 April 20, 1990 - ROQUE FLORES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89879 April 20, 1990 - JAIME PABALAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57308 April 23, 1990 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66683 April 23, 1990 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44905 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL MONEGRO TORRE

  • G.R. No. 68152 April 25, 1990 - CEFERINO ZAIDE, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78527 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN K. GUIAGUI

  • G.R. No. 88092 April 25, 1990 - CITADEL LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88538 April 25, 1990 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89431 April 25, 1990 - ERIBERTO G. VALENCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43277 April 26, 1990 - STANDARD MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49298 April 26, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56838 April 26, 1990 - GENARO NAVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70008 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO MOLINA

  • G.R. No. 79311 April 26, 1990 - PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80298 April 26, 1990 - EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP. v. LEONOR SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81564 April 26, 1990 - ACTING REGISTRARS OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS OF PASAY, ET AL. v. RTC, BRANCH 57, IN MKT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82362 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO C. CLORES

  • G.R. No. 84313 April 26, 1990 - HEIRS OF DECEASED COSME RABE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85822 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONILO ALBURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85840 April 26, 1990 - SERVANDO’S INCORPORATED v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86163 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87958 April 26, 1990 - NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, ET AL. v. STOLT-NIELSEN PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46845 April 27, 1990 - PEDRO T. SANTIAGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47281 April 27, 1990 - JUAN SALA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL (Branch V), ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49241-42 April 27, 1990 - RINCONADA TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68997 April 27, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO C. LIBAG

  • G.R. No. 73010 April 27, 1990 - REVA RAZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88586 April 27, 1990 - CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.