GR L 27636; (May, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27636 May 19, 1984
PEDRO A. BERNAS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pedro Bernas filed an action for recovery of possession of Lot 477 against spouses Filomeno and Josefa Villanueva, claiming ownership from a purchase at a sheriff’s auction sale of the interest of Consolacion Patricio. The Villanuevas, in their answer and counterclaim, asserted ownership over Lot 477 and sought recovery of Lots 317, 318, and 319 from Bernas, claiming they purchased these lots from Fortunato Jayme, who inherited them from Efigenia Enriquez. The trial court adjudicated Lots 318 and 319 to Bernas, but split Lots 317 and 477, awarding one-half of each to Bernas and the Villanuevas. Only Bernas appealed this decision.
The Court of Appeals, upon review, made factual findings supporting Bernas’s claim. It found that Lots 477 and 317 were indeed properties Bernas purchased at the 1938 auction sale after being levied upon to satisfy a judgment against Consolacion Patricio. It noted that all previous tax declarations for Lot 477 were in Patricio’s name, and the Villanuevas’ claim, based on a purchase from Jayme, was unsupported as none of the parcels Jayme inherited matched Lots 317 or 477. The Villanuevas had never been in possession of Lot 317.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the case for further proceedings and subsequently dismissing Bernas’s complaint, despite its own factual findings that substantiated his claim of ownership over the disputed lots.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The appellate court’s own factual evaluation established Bernas’s interests in Lots 317 and 477 while negating the Villanuevas’ pretensions. Given that the evidence on record did not sustain the Villanuevas’ position or the trial court’s split adjudication, the proper course for the Court of Appeals was to render a decision based on the existing evidence, not to remand the case. A remand would improperly give the Villanuevas a second chance to present evidence. Furthermore, the Villanuevas did not appeal the trial court’s judgment awarding Bernas one-half of each lot, making that portion final and executory. The Court of Appeals’ dismissal would unjustly wipe out this vested right. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and, in the interest of dispatch, declared Bernas the owner of Lots 317 and 477 in their entirety, remanding only the issue of damages for determination.