GR 38685; (March, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38685 March 31, 1977
LIANGA LUMBER COMPANY and NORTH ZAMBALES LUMBER COMPANY, petitioners, vs. LIANGA TIMBER CO., INC. and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lianga Lumber Company and private respondent Lianga Timber Co., Inc. hold adjacent timber concessions in Agusan and Surigao, respectively. In 1959, Lianga Lumber filed a complaint alleging that Lianga Timber, through force and intimidation, had entered and prevented its logging operations in Sitio Tagabaca, which it claimed was within its Agusan concession. The parties initially agreed to desist from logging pending a boundary settlement by authorities, but Lianga Lumber alleged the respondent violated this agreement. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Lianga Lumber. After trial, the court dismissed both the complaint and the respondent’s counterclaims, declaring the disputed area part of Lianga Timber’s Surigao concession. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioners now appeal via certiorari, challenging the appellate court’s factual findings and the validity of its resolutions.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Supreme Court can review the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s determination that the disputed logging area was within the respondent’s concession and not the petitioners’.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing questions of law. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court, provided they are supported by substantial evidence. The Court meticulously examined the record and found that the appellate court’s conclusions were indeed grounded on substantial evidence, including the technical descriptions of the timber licenses, survey plans, and testimonial evidence regarding the location of the inter-provincial boundary road. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the findings were devoid of evidentiary support or were based on a misapprehension of facts. The Court also noted that the petition simultaneously invoked Rule 65 (certiorari) to assail the appellate court’s resolutions, but found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of the assailed resolutions. Therefore, the Court upheld the principle that it is not a trier of facts and will not re-evaluate evidence already considered by the lower courts. The ownership and possession of the disputed area were correctly adjudicated in favor of the private respondent based on the evidence on record.