G.R. No. 181664 ; November 14, 2012
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. CRISPIN D. RAMOS and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Respondents.

FACTS

The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) entered into a Deed of Absolute Sale with respondent Crispin D. Ramos for a portion of land needed for a bridge project. The property was co-owned by heirs, but Ramos, as a co-owner, agreed to sell a portion from his inheritance share. DPWH paid the purchase price of P570,000.00 by depositing it into Ramos’s savings account with petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). After Ramos withdrew P100,000.00, DPWH requested LBP to hold further releases because another co-owner, Jose Advito D. Ramos, claimed a share in the proceeds. Relying on a DPWH legal opinion that required a deed of partition among all co-owners before payment, LBP froze the account.
Ramos filed a complaint for recovery of bank deposit with damages against LBP in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). LBP filed a third-party complaint against DPWH. The RTC ruled in favor of Ramos, ordering LBP to allow the withdrawal of the remaining deposit with interest and to pay litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, while dismissing the third-party complaint against DPWH. LBP appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed LBP’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it raised only questions of law, not fact, and was thus the wrong mode of appeal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the CA for adjudication on the merits. The Court held that the CA erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal via a petition for review under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court to the CA is proper when the appeal raises questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. A question of law exists when the doubt concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts. A question of fact exists when the issue requires a review of the evidence presented.
Here, LBP’s appeal assailed not only the RTC’s legal conclusions regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under the contract and banking laws but also the factual basis for the award of damages and attorney’s fees. The determination of whether the award of attorney’s fees was justified under Article 2208 of the Civil Code required an examination of the factual circumstances, making it a mixed question of fact and law. Consequently, the appeal was correctly brought before the CA, which had jurisdiction to review it. The CA’s dismissal was reversed.