December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 185641 : December 16, 2009] GAUDENCIO PACUNO AND ONESIMA ALCOS PACUNO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF PABLO PILIPINA, RESPONDENTS:
[G.R. No. 185641 : December 16, 2009]
GAUDENCIO PACUNO AND ONESIMA ALCOS PACUNO, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF PABLO PILIPINA, RESPONDENTS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 December 2009:
G.R. No. 185641 - GAUDENCIO PACUNO AND ONESIMA ALCOS PACUNO, petitioners, versus HEIRS OF PABLO PILIPINA, respondents.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, questioning the Decision[1] dated September 16, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85222. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' appeal from the Decision[2] dated January 10, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Abra, Branch 2 m Civil Case No. 531. Also assailed is the Resolution[3]
Petitioners contend that they bought the one-third (1/3) share of the late Pablo Pilipina (Pablo) in a 630-square meter property in Poblacion, Pidigan. Abra, which the latter inherited from his late father. Respondents, as heirs of Pablo, filed an action for annulment of deed of sale, ownership and reconveyance with damages claiming that the signature of Pablo in the deed of sale was a forgery. After trial, the RTC decided in favor of respondents in its January 10, 2005 Decision. Petitioners appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, found petitioners' appeal unmeritorious and denied the same. The Court of Appeals likewise denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration; hence, the present petition, raising the sole issue of whether or not the lower courts erred in their finding that the signature of Pablo in the deed of sale was a forgery.[4]
We deny the petition for failure of petitioners to show any special and important reasons to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari to this Court. The findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding and conclusive on this Court and cannot be reviewed on appeal save in well-established exceptions[5] which do not obtain in this case.
Moreover, petitioners failed to show that the appellate court committed any reversible error in the challenged decision. Other than the written report of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Questioned Documents Section and the expert testimony of Document Examiner IV Rogelio G. Azores, the Court of Appeals also appreciated other relevant evidence presented before the RTC when it found that the testimonies of Crispina Pilipina, the widow of Pablo, and Yolanda Bilgera, a daughter of Pablo, further bolstered the findings of the NBI regarding the authenticity and veracity of Pablo's signature in the deed of sale. They testified that at the time of the execution of the questioned deed of sale, Pablo was already very sick due to cancer of the throat and was confined at the Veteran's Memorial Hospital; he could neither speak nor write at that time. They have never seen any of the alleged witnesses in the deed of sale nor the notary public. The Court of Appeals also considered the testimony of petitioner Onesima Pacuno who admitted that she received the deed of sale from Elverosio Pilipina already signed by Pablo, and together they went to Abra to see Judge Gabino B. Balbin, Jr. to have the deed of sale notarized. The appellate court did not give much credence to the contrary expert testimony of Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui as he also served as the counsel of petitioners. Most importantly, the Court of Appeals arrived at the same result as the RTC in its conscientious comparison of the sample genuine signatures of Pablo with the questioned signature in the deed of sale. The appellate court found that the purported signature was not that of Pablo.[6]
Therefore, the conclusion reached by both the RTC and the Court of Appeals must now be regarded with great respect and finality for it is not this Court's function under Rule 45 to review, examine and evaluate or weigh once again the probative value of the evidence presented.[7]
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED. The September 16, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CY no. 85222 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr.. Members, First Division, this 16th day of December 2009.
G.R. No. 185641 - GAUDENCIO PACUNO AND ONESIMA ALCOS PACUNO, petitioners, versus HEIRS OF PABLO PILIPINA, respondents.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, questioning the Decision[1] dated September 16, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85222. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' appeal from the Decision[2] dated January 10, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Abra, Branch 2 m Civil Case No. 531. Also assailed is the Resolution[3]
Petitioners contend that they bought the one-third (1/3) share of the late Pablo Pilipina (Pablo) in a 630-square meter property in Poblacion, Pidigan. Abra, which the latter inherited from his late father. Respondents, as heirs of Pablo, filed an action for annulment of deed of sale, ownership and reconveyance with damages claiming that the signature of Pablo in the deed of sale was a forgery. After trial, the RTC decided in favor of respondents in its January 10, 2005 Decision. Petitioners appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, found petitioners' appeal unmeritorious and denied the same. The Court of Appeals likewise denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration; hence, the present petition, raising the sole issue of whether or not the lower courts erred in their finding that the signature of Pablo in the deed of sale was a forgery.[4]
We deny the petition for failure of petitioners to show any special and important reasons to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari to this Court. The findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding and conclusive on this Court and cannot be reviewed on appeal save in well-established exceptions[5] which do not obtain in this case.
Moreover, petitioners failed to show that the appellate court committed any reversible error in the challenged decision. Other than the written report of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Questioned Documents Section and the expert testimony of Document Examiner IV Rogelio G. Azores, the Court of Appeals also appreciated other relevant evidence presented before the RTC when it found that the testimonies of Crispina Pilipina, the widow of Pablo, and Yolanda Bilgera, a daughter of Pablo, further bolstered the findings of the NBI regarding the authenticity and veracity of Pablo's signature in the deed of sale. They testified that at the time of the execution of the questioned deed of sale, Pablo was already very sick due to cancer of the throat and was confined at the Veteran's Memorial Hospital; he could neither speak nor write at that time. They have never seen any of the alleged witnesses in the deed of sale nor the notary public. The Court of Appeals also considered the testimony of petitioner Onesima Pacuno who admitted that she received the deed of sale from Elverosio Pilipina already signed by Pablo, and together they went to Abra to see Judge Gabino B. Balbin, Jr. to have the deed of sale notarized. The appellate court did not give much credence to the contrary expert testimony of Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui as he also served as the counsel of petitioners. Most importantly, the Court of Appeals arrived at the same result as the RTC in its conscientious comparison of the sample genuine signatures of Pablo with the questioned signature in the deed of sale. The appellate court found that the purported signature was not that of Pablo.[6]
Therefore, the conclusion reached by both the RTC and the Court of Appeals must now be regarded with great respect and finality for it is not this Court's function under Rule 45 to review, examine and evaluate or weigh once again the probative value of the evidence presented.[7]
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED. The September 16, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CY no. 85222 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr.. Members, First Division, this 16th day of December 2009.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 54-69. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Isaias P. Dicdican.
[2] Id. at 29-40. Penned by Judge Corpus B. Alzate.
[3] Id. at 90-91.
[4] Id. at 16.
[5] Recognized exceptions to this rule are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave -, abuse of discretion; (4) 'Alien die judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellee and the appellant: (7) when (lie findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Arangote v. Magluinob, G.R.No. 178906. February 18, 2009, 579 SCRA 620, 632.)
[6] Rollo, pp. 64-65.
[7] Lorenzo v. People, G.R. No. 152335, December 19, 2005, 478 SCRA 462, 469.
