ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 142940. November 20, 2000]

SPS. JAURO & PABOLAR vs. GALLEGO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 20 2000.

G.R. No. 142940 (Sps. Camilo Jauro & Erlinda Pabolar vs. Antonio Gallego.)

A perusal of the instant petition reveals that it raises questions of fact, to wit:

1.�������� WHETHER THE PETITIONERS ARE THE ABSOLUTE OWNERS OF THE QUESTIONED PROPERTY.

2.�������� WHETHER THE ISSUANCE OF THE FREE PATENT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS WAS ATTENDED BY FRAUD.

3.�������� WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ESTABLISHING WHETHER FRAUD ATTENDED THE SAME.

4.�������� WHETHER RECONVEYANCE CAN BE RIGHTFULLY GRANTED.

It is axiomatic that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by the Supreme Court - and they carry more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court. ¹ Meneses vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 162 (1995).Moreover, it is basic rule that only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. ² Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 606.

In the case at bar, the trial court had found that:

Preponderant evidence shows that plaintiff (private respondent Antonio Gallego) is the true owner of the 13,365 square meters which was included in the free patent issued to Camilo Jauro and which the latter had subsequently titled. Because of this, the Court has to order a reconveyance of the said parcel of land. ³ Rollo , pp. 55-56.

The above finding, among others, was affirmed in its entirety by the Court of Appeals. Hence, in line with jurisprudence on factual findings of said courts, this Court is constrained to DENY the instant petition.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE