ChanRobles Virtual law Library

Third Division

Sirs and Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 14 2005.

G.R. No. 135611 ( Spouses Reynaldo and Rizalina P. Salomon vs. The Court of Appeals and Spouses Amado S. Estrella and Belen P. Estrella.)

Assailed in this petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is the Decision ^[1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals dated September 11, 1998 in CA-G.R. CV No. 43417, entitled "SPOUSES AMADO S. ESTRELLA and BELEN P. ESTRELLA versus SPOUSES REYNALDO SALOMON and RIZALINA P. SALOMON."

The contending parties in this case are sisters Rizalina Paguio Salomon and Belen Paguio Estrella. Sometime in July 1986, a three-door apartment at Sofia Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila was offered for sale to Rizalina at P150,000.00. Since she had only P100,000.00, she borrowed P50,000.00 from her sister Belen in Gapan, Nueva Ecija. But Belen's money was only P20,000.00, prompting her to borrow P10,000.00 from her father Narciso. To raise the remaining P20,000.00, she obtained various loans from her other relatives in Gapan.

On July 15, 1986, with her P100,000.00 and Belen's P50,000.00, Rizalina was able to buy the apartment.

On January 1987, Rizalina and her family moved to Unit No. 216 of the apartment. In June 1987, Belen and her family occupied Unit No. 215. Rizalina leased the third unit (No. 217) to another family.

In June 1989, Belen asked Rizalina to execute a deed of sale over Unit No. 215. Rizalina refused, saying that she and her husband Reynaldo are the sole owners of the three-door apartment. Their parents tried to reconcile the warring sisters, but to no avail. The controversy reached the barangay, but still they failed to settle amicably.

On December 19, 1989, Belen filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, an action for specific performance, docketed as Civil Case No. 89-51398. Belen prayed that Rizalina be ordered to execute a deed of absolute sale in her favor.

In turn, Rizalina filed a complaint for quieting of title against Belen with the same RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 90-51522.

As the two cases involve the same property, the cases were consolidated and jointly tried by Branch 23. Rizalina maintains that the P50,000.00 she received from Belen is a loan, while Belen contends that the amount was her payment for one unit of the apartment.

After trial, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the evidence of the Spouses Amado and Belen Estrella, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 89-51398 have established their cause of action against defendant Spouses Reynaldo and Rizalina Salomon. Judgment is therefore rendered in favor of the Spouses Amado and Belen Estrella ordering the Spouses Salomon to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale on the one door of the three door apartment with address at 213 Sofia St., Balut, Tondo, Manila, in favor of the Spouses Estrella and to pay attorney's fees in the sum of P10,000.00.

Consequently, Civil Case No. 90-51522 is ordered dismissed for lack of evidence.

SO ORDERED." ^[2] cralaw

In finding for Belen and her husband, the trial court relied on the testimony of Narciso Paguio, the octogenarian father of the quarreling sisters. He testified that in May 1986, he learned that his daughters were buying an apartment in Manila. They agreed that two of the doors would be paid by Rizalina, while Belen would pay for the other door. When the controversy was brought to his attention in March 1989, he called his seven sons and four daughters to a family conference. But he refused to take side. To settle the matter, Rizalina's husband, Reynaldo, stated that he would be the one to decide. Reynaldo declared that he and Rizalina would give one door unit to Belen and that they would execute the corresponding deed of sale. However, they did not comply with their commitment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision.

Hence, the instant petition.

This petition does not raise any question of law, but merely reiterates the factual issue raised before the courts below, i.e., whether the P50,000.00 given by Belen to Rizalina is a loan or a purchase price for one unit.

The trial court found that the P50,000.00 is Belen's "share of the purchase price of the apartment." This factual finding has been sustained by the Court of Appeals. Basic is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. ^[3] cralaw This Court is not a trier of facts and does not, as a rule, evaluate anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals. ^[4] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 43417 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court