ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
February-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99039 February 3, 1997 - FORD PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100748 February 3, 1997 - JOSE BARITUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108547 February 3, 1997 - FELICIDAD VDA. DE CABRERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112761-65 February 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO M. PEPITO

  • G.R. No. 114183 February 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS BORJA

  • G.R. No. 119310 February 3, 1997 - JULIETA V. ESGUERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119935 February 3, 1997 - UNITED SOUTH DOCKHANDLERS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997 - MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123332 February 3, 1997 - AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118915 February 4, 1997 - CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER-ACE-UFSW v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1110 February 6, 1997 - MELENCIO S. SY v. CARMELITA S. MONGCUPA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1203 February 6, 1997 - ERNESTO A. REYES v. NORBERTO R. ANOSA

  • G.R. No. 110668 February 6, 1997 ccc zz

    SMITH, BELL & CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111682 February 6, 1997 - ZENAIDA REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117982 February 6, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118843 February 6, 1997 - ERIKS PTE. LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118950-54 February 6, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRECIA GABRES

  • G.R. No. 119322 February 6, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98252 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE JANUARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110391 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 112191 February 7, 1997 - FORTUNE MOTORS (PHILS.) CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112714-15 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAGARAL

  • G.R. No. 117472 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO ECHEGARAY

  • G.R. No. 119657 February 7, 1997 - UNIMASTERS CONGLOMERATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119772-73 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIGEL RICHARD GATWARD

  • G.R. No. 125249 February 7, 1997 - JIMMY S. DE CASTRO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1161 February 10, 1997 - JESUS N. BANDONG v. BELLA R. CHING

  • G.R. No. 108894 February 10, 1997 - TECNOGAS PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109887 February 10, 1997 - CECILIA CARLOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117702 February 10, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPIN YPARRAGUIRRE

  • G.R. No. 124553 February 10, 1997 - ROSARIO R. TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1070 February 12, 1997 - MARIA APIAG, ET AL. v. ESMERALDO G. CANTERO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-87-100 February 12, 1997 - FELISA ELIC VDA. DE ABELLERA v. NEMESIO N. DALISAY

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1231 February 12, 1997 - ISAIAS P. DICDICAN v. RUSSO FERNAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68166 February 12, 1997 - HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104666 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO OMBROG

  • G.R. No. 115129 February 12, 1997 - IGNACIO BARZAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116511 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COLOMA TABAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118025 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REBECCO SATOR

  • G.R. No. 120769 February 12, 1997 - STANLEY J. FORTICH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125531 February 12, 1997 - JOVAN LAND v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107554 February 13, 1997 - CEBU INT’L. FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112968 February 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO LETIGIO

  • G.R. No. 114144 February 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ABAD

  • G.R. Nos. 114711 & 115889 February 13, 1997 - GARMENTS and TEXTILE EXPORT BOARD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122728 February 13, 1997 - CASIANO A. ANGCHANGCO v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-217 February 17, 1997 - MANUEL F. CONCEPCION v. JESUS V. AGANA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ 97-1369 February 17, 1997 - OCTAVIO DEL CALLAR v. IGNACIO L. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 103501-03 & 103507 February 17, 1997 - LUIS A. TABUENA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119247 February 17, 1997 - CESAR SULIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119536 February 17, 1997 - GLORIA S. DELA CRUZ v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121017 February 17, 1997 - OLIVIA B. CAMANAG v. JESUS F. GUERRERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122165 February 17, 1997 - ALA MODE GARMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123823 February 17, 1997 - MODESTO G. ESPAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96249 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALIPIO QUIAMCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114396 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ROBERT BURTON

  • G.R. No. 118140 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE PIANDIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121084 February 19, 1997 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. v. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107916 February 20, 1997 - PERCIVAL MODAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112288 February 20, 1997 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1034 February 21, 1997 - LEWELYN S. ESTRELLER v. SOFRONIO MANATAD, JR.

  • G.R. No. 73399 February 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ABEDES

  • G.R. No. 117394 February 21, 1997 - HINATUAN MINING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997 - SOPHIA ALAWI v. ASHARY M. ALAUYA

  • G.R. No. 110427 February 24, 1997 - CARMEN CAÑIZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1195 February 26, 1997 - ROMEO NAZARENO, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO

  • G.R. No. 94237 February 26, 1997 - BUILDING CARE CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997 - PACITA DAVID-CHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107671 February 26, 1997 - REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109849 February 26, 1997 - MAXIMINO FUENTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110098 February 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAFE AZUGUE

  • G.R. No. 111538 February 26, 1997 - PARAÑAQUE KINGS ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116033 February 26, 1997 - ALFREDO L. AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123404 February 26, 1997 - AURELIO SUMALPONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1368 February 27, 1997 - ERNESTO RIEGO, ET AL. v. EMILIO LEACHON, JR.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 109849   February 26, 1997 - MAXIMINO FUENTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 109849. February 26, 1997.]

    MAXIMINO FUENTES, Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THIRTEENTH DIVISION, AND VIRGILIO UY, BRIGIDO SAGUINDANG, LEONCIO CALIGANG, ET AL., Respondents.

    Jesus S . Anonat for Petitioner.

    Egbert S . Caralla for Private Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DEEMED CONCLUSIVE AND GENERALLY RESPECTED; EXCEPTIONS. — Jurisprudence teaches us that" (a)s a rule, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals . . . is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive. As such this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. This rule, however, is not without exceptions." The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which are as a general rule deemed conclusive, may admit of review by this Court: (1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory, (2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion, (8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; (9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based, and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record. Here, the petition raises no substantial question of law. The question raised is a question of fact beyond the pale of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which mandates that only questions of law be raised in the petition. Moreover, petitioner utterly failed to show the presence of any of the exceptions to justify the Court’s review of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.


    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    In deciding this appeal, the Court reiterates the oft-stated doctrine that factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.

    This is a petition under Rule 45 seeking a reversal of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 promulgated on March 22, 1993, in CA-G.R. SP No. 29910.

    The Antecedent Facts

    The facts of the case as gleaned from the respondent Court of Appeals’ Decision are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(Herein petitioner) Maximino Fuentes and (herein private respondents) Virgilio Uy, Et. Al. are owners of adjoining parcels of land situated in Dela Paz, Clarin, Misamis Occidental. The (herein petitioner’s) land declared in his name is identified as Lot No. 1358, Pls 707 while that of the defendant Virgilio Uy, titled in the latter’s name, is identified as Lot No. 1357.

    The boundary lines of the adjoining lands had been relocated twice by Engineer Armelito Amores in surveys conducted before the case for forcible entry was filed. When the case was already filed, further relocation surveys were conducted, this time, by Engineer Norberto Iyog thru a court order on the litigated portion consisting of 411 square meters which according to the plaintiff was forcibly taken and entered into by (herein private respondents).

    In hearing the case, the MCTC of Clarin-Tudela stated the issues to be as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Was there an act of dispossession effected by the defendants on the disputed property whereby the plaintiff was dispossessed of the disputed property? and

    2. To whom did the area of 411 square meters belong?

    The trial court making a review of the evidence on record held that the (herein private respondents) have superior evidence to disprove the allegations of (herein petitioner) and on the basis of which, it found that the (herein private respondents) have not committed the acts complained of by (herein petitioner), in the main pointing to the statement of the witness Alfredo Dantes as reflected in the stenographic notes particularly indicated as tsn, p. 46, proceedings of February 8, 1991, wherein said witness appeared to have testified that he bought the land from the heirs of the original owner, one Gadiane, which he improved gradually by putting up a dike which in effect was only an improvement of an already existing dike and in 1976, he had entered into an agreement with (herein private respondents) to develop the property on a sharing basis which finally culminated in his selling the said area in 1980 to the (herein private respondents).

    What appeared to have impressed the trial court most is expressed in its statement that the (herein petitioner) should have questioned the action of the (herein private respondents) in improving the dike and having it fenced, and also, why it was only in 1987 when he tried to restrain the (herein private respondents) when the same dike had existed many years before. The part of the decision in connection with said questions of the court is herein quoted:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "This court finds it strange for the (herein petitioner) for him to question the action of the defendant in fencing the dikes. If it appeared to him that the dike fenced by the defendant which is the same dike existing when Dantes bought the property from Gadiane really belonged to him, why did he not question the same many years before? Yet, all the time when Dantes, since 1970 and later the (herein private respondent) in 1976, made improvements on the dike, the plaintiff did not make any adverse move to restrain them. It was only in 1987 when he made the initial move of trying to restrain (herein private respondent) which prompted the latter to cause a (sic) relocation surveys which were conducted by Engr. Amores twice."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Prescinding from the foregoing findings, the trial court said it found nothing wrong for the (herein private respondents) to have fenced the dike after the relocation survey conducted by Engr. Amores which the (herein petitioner) had attended and further stated that the act of fencing the dike and cutting the nipa palms did not violate the property rights of the (herein petitioner) for the (herein private respondents) only acted to assert what properly belongs to them and on the basis of (the) Commissioner’s Report more or less indicating the foregoing circumstances, it held that there was in fact no forcible dispossession of property and that further, the area of 411 square meters under dispute factually belongs to (herein private respondent) Virgilio Uy.

    The decision of the MCTC of Clarin-Tudela was appealed by the (herein plaintiff) and the RTC Ozamis City resolved to affirm the decision of the MCTC deleting only the monetary award therein granted in favor of the (herein private respondents).

    The (herein) petitioner in the case before (the respondent Court of Appeals) has raised two (2) purported errors of the court below thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That the honorable Regional Trial Court, Branch 15-A, Ozamiz City, gravely erred in deciding that (herein petitioner) had no evidence to support the allegation that (herein private respondents) entered the portion in question by force and intimidation.

    That the honorable Regional Trial Court Branch 15-A, Ozamiz City, erred in sustaining that the (herein private respondents) did not commit any act constituting forcible entry." 3

    The Issue


    Hence, petitioner Maximino Fuentes filed the present six-page petition alleging the same assignment of errors raised before the Court of Appeals as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That the Honorable Regional Trial Court, Branch 15-A, Ozamiz City, gravely erred in deciding that plaintiff had no evidence to support the allegation that defendants entered the portion in question by force and intimidation.cralawnad

    2. That the Honorable Regional Trial Court, Branch 15-A, Ozamiz City, erred in sustaining that the defendants did not commit any act constituting forcible entry." 4

    In his Memorandum, the petitioner consolidated these into a single issue: Who is in actual, physical and prior possession of the portion in question?

    The Court’s Ruling


    The petition for review is unmeritorious.

    Jurisprudence teaches us that" (a)s a rule, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals . . . is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive. As such this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. This rule, however, is not without exceptions." 5 The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which are as a general rule deemed conclusive, may admit of review by this Court: 6

    (1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;

    (2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

    (3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

    (4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;

    (5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

    (6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts;

    (7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion;

    (8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;

    (9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and

    (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.

    After a thorough review of the the case at bench, the Court finds that the petition raises no substantial question of law. The question raised as to who has prior actual possession over the contested portion of land is patently a question of fact beyond the pale of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which mandates that only questions of law be raised in the petition. 7

    Moreover, petitioner utterly failed to show the presence of any of the previously mentioned exceptions to justify the Court’s review of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. On the contrary, the factual findings and conclusion of the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, and Court of Appeals in the instant case regarding the issue raised in this petition are consistent and backed up by the extant evidence. "Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of facts of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court." 8

    All in all, the petition, viewed in its entirety, sorely fails to demonstrate any reversible error committed by the respondent Court of Appeals.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. Double costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 23-28.

    2. Thirteenth Division, composed of J. Cezar D. Francisco, Ponente, JJ., Pedro A. Ramirez, chairman, and Angelina S. Gutierrez, concurring.

    3. Rollo, pp. 24-26.

    4. Ibid., p. 4.

    5. Gaw v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 220 SCRA 405, 413, March 24, 1993; citing Morales v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 391, May 23, 1991, and Navarra v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 850, December 17, 1991.

    6. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110207, p. 8, July 11, 1996, Vda. de Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 457, 468, January 29, 1996, Quebral v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 353, 368, January 25, 1996 (citing Calde v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 376, June 27, 1994. See also Cayabyab v. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court, 232 SCRA 1, April 28, 1994), Engineering & Machinery Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 156, 163, January 24, 1996, Chua Tiong Tay v. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 183, 186, March 31, 1995, Dee v. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 254, 263, November 21, 1994, and Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 437, 443.

    7. Paragraph 2, Section 2, Rule 45, Rules of Court.

    8. Juan Castillo and Maria Masangya-Castillo, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No. 106472, p. 9, August 7, 1996.

    G.R. No. 109849   February 26, 1997 - MAXIMINO FUENTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED