ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 140922.
LARRAZABAL vs. ROQUE, JR.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated
G.R. No. 140922 ( Anna Marie Larrazabal, petitioner, vs. Domingo O. Roque, Jr., respondent.)
Petition for review on certiorari
[1]
cralaw
assailing the Decision
[2]
cralaw
of the Court of Appeals dated
On
In her answer, petitioner alleged that she is the owner of the subject property as shown by TCT No. (366962) T-72291 under her name. In September 1994, before she left for abroad, it was her understanding with her common-law husband, Leonardo Santos, that he would pay her loan. It appears that the property was mortgaged as security for such loan. Upon her return and after the death of Leonardo Santos, she came to know from the Register of Deeds of Quezon City that the property has been registered in the name of their maid, Janet Misa. Forthwith, she filed a complaint for annulment of sale against the latter, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-23809. She denied having forcibly entered the subject premises, claiming that she has been occupying the same since she returned from abroad.
The MeTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondent.
On appeal, [4] cralaw the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 221, Quezon City rendered Judgment affirming the MeTC decision with the modification in the sense that respondent was declared to be entitled to an award of P30,000.00 as reasonable compensation for petitioner's use and occupation of the premises.
Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review.
In its Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision with the modification that "petitioner is hereby required to pay as reasonable compensation for the occupation of the subject premises the amount of P5,000.00 as monthly rental from the time of actual occupation up to the time of her eviction therefrom." [5] cralaw
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in a
Resolution dated
Hence this petition.
Petitioner ascribes to the Court of Appeals the following errors:
"I.� THE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE UNCONTRADICTED
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER ON RECORD WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE
RESPONDENT NEVER ACQUIRED PRIOR PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON
II.� THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY ON
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE DECISION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, QUEZON CITY IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 45150 ACQUITTING PETITIONER FROM THE CHARGE OF TRESPASS TO DWELLING INVOLVES THE SAME FACTS AS THE PRESENT CASE.
IV.������������� THE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE APPLICABLE ON THE MATTER IN ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS IN PRIOR PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY."
The petition has no merit.
It can be readily observed that petitioner raises factual issues which are not within the realm of our power of review. It is elementary that in an action for forcible entry, the only issue for resolution is prior physical possession. [6] cralaw The MeTC, the RTC and the Court of Appeals all held that respondent has prior physical possession of the premises. Time and again, we have stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts. [7] cralaw It will not weigh anew the evidence which had been properly considered in the proceedings below. Nevertheless, the Court has the authority to review and, in proper cases, reverse the factual findings of lower courts in these instances: (a) when the findings are grounded on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (d) when the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts are conflicting; (e) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, has gone beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties; (f) when the judgment of the appellate court is premised on a misapprehension of facts or when it has failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (g) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence upon which they are based; and (h) when findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record. [8] cralaw Petitioner failed to show that any of such exceptions is present here.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED.
The
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2] cralaw Rollo at 35-44; penned by Associate Justice Corona Ibay-Somera (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili (retired) and Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
[3] cralaw Id. at 46.
[4] cralaw Docketed as Civil Case No. 97-3 1973, dated January 30, 1998.
[5] cralaw Rollo at 44.
[6] cralaw Vda. de Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117971, February 1, 2001, 351 SCRA 12, citing Cagayan De Oro City Landless Residents' Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 220,231-232 (1996), citing Joven vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 700 (1992); Ganadin vs. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613 (1980) and Section 7, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court, now Sec. 18, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[7] cralaw Prudential Bank and Trust Company vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 141093, February 20, 2001, 352 SCRA 316; Wong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117857, February 2, 2001, 351 SCRA 100; Bermudez vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 132810, December 11, 2000, 347 SCRA 611; Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 139437, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 542; Damasco vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 115755 & 116101, December 4, 2000, 346 SCRA 714; Davao Abaca Plantation Co., Inc. vs. Dole Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 134431, December 1, 2000, 346 SCRA 682.
[8] cralaw Teresita Bongato vs. Spouses Severo A. Malvar and Trinidad Malvar, G.R. No. 141614, August 14, 2002; San Miguel Corporation vs. Heirs of Sabiano Inguito, and Julius Ouano, G.R. No. 141716, July 4, 2004; Lagon vs. Hooven Comalco Industries, G.R. No. 135657, January 17, 2001,citing Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110207, 11 July 1996, 258 SCRA 651; Halili vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113539, March 12, 1998, 287 SCRA 465; Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117501, July 8, 1997, 275 SCRA 267.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
