G.R. No. 164787 ; January 31, 2006
MARLENE CRISOSTOMO & JOSE G. CRISOSTOMO, Petitioners, vs. FLORITO M. GARCIA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Florito Garcia, Jr. filed a complaint for cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 273165 against petitioners-spouses Marlene and Jose Crisostomo. Garcia alleged that the subject property was sold to him by Victoria Garcia Vda. de Crisostomo, mother of petitioner Jose, through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 24, 1986. Petitioner Jose and his sister signed as witnesses. Garcia allowed the vendor and her children to remain as lessees. He transferred the tax declaration to his name but, before he could register the sale, petitioners obtained a loan using the property as collateral and secured TCT No. 273165 in their names in 1993.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Garcia’s cause of action, based on the 1986 deed, prescribed in ten years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. They argued the complaint filed in 2002 was barred, having been filed over 16 years from the sale. Garcia countered that his action was not for specific performance on the contract but for reconveyance based on an implied trust, arising from the alleged fraudulent registration in 1993, which prescribes ten years from discovery of the fraud.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari by ruling that the defense of prescription involves a question of fact not reviewable under such petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s dismissal. The core issue of prescription was correctly treated as a question of fact, making certiorari an improper remedy. A question of law exists when the doubt concerns the correct application of law to undisputed facts. A question of fact arises when the resolution requires a review of the evidence to ascertain the truth of alleged facts. Here, determining when Garcia’s cause of action accrued and whether it prescribed necessitates an examination of the evidence regarding the nature of his action and the timing of his discovery of the alleged fraud—matters inherently factual.
The trial court, in denying the motion to dismiss, preliminarily found that Garcia’s action was for cancellation of title based on fraud discovered in 1993 upon registration, implying it was an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust. Such an action prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title or discovery of the fraud, not from the date of the original sale. This preliminary determination involved an assessment of the allegations and the nature of the action, which is factual. Since certiorari under Rule 65 does not correct errors of judgment but only jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion, and the trial court’s order was interlocutory, the Court of Appeals correctly refused to delve into the merits. The proper course for petitioners was to file an answer, proceed to trial, and raise prescription as a defense, with the right to appeal a final adverse judgment.