ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 129955. June 14, 2000]

SPS. MARIANO & JULIETA MADRIGAL vs. HON CA., et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 129955 (Spouses Mariano Madrigal and Julieta Madrigal, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, the Honorable Presiding Judge, Br. 139, RTC, City of Makati and Spouses Joseph and Josefina Aquino.)

Before the Court is petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision, dated November 26, 1999, which denied the petition for lack of merit.

The Decision sought to be reconsidered upheld the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petition for certiorari of the herein movants, seeking to annul the Decision handed down on October 9, 1995 by Branch 139 of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City, which decision ordered the herein movants to vacate subject land covered by TCT No. 152633 under the name of the private respondents and to remove therefrom the structures thereon constructed.

Movants contend that the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals should be reconsidered on the ground that:

"THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, WITH UTMOST DUE RESPECT, ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS WITH RESPECT TO THE NON-INCLUSION OF AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IS NOT A QUESTION OF FACT BUT , ON THA CONTRARY, A LEGAL ISSUE THAT THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT CAN PASS UPON PURSUANT TO RULE 45."

They make it appear that the issue persistently raised is a question of law which is whether the failure to include an indispensable party is a jurisdictional defect which renders as a nullity the proceedings below. However, what movants are seeking is for this Court to rule on their alleged title and to declare that they have a superior title over subject property, on the basis of evidence movants failed to properly present before the lower court.

It bears stressing that the Court is not a trier of facts. In an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, questions of fact are not to be delved into and passed upon by this Court, which is bound by the factual findings of the trial court and appellate court. It is not for this Court to examine the evidence introduced below by the private respondents and to determine if the trial court correctly evaluated the same.1 Rollo, pp. 98-99; Decision, pp. 10-11.

WHEREFORE, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE