GR 160918; (April, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160918 April 16, 2009
CONCEPCION B. ALCANTARA Herein substituted by her son DR. ANTONIO B. ALCANTARA, Petitioner, vs. HILARIA ROBLE DE TEMPLA, ALBERTO ROBLE, MARIANO ROBLE, ELEODORA ROBLE DE MOLINO, and RODABLADO ROBLE, as the heirs of the late JESUSA BOOC; GALA YCONG DE TABLADA, CIRIACA YCONG DE BALDADO, VICENTE YCONG, HILARIO YCONG (deceased), represented by his heirs JOY, ALEX, and SOFIA all surnamed YCONG, and LEONARDA YCONG, his surviving spouse, as the heirs of the late COLUMBA BOOC; GERVASIO BOOC; JULIETA BOOC as heir of the late CANDELARIO BOOC; CONSUELO LLAMAS VDA. DE BOOC; ROGELIO BOOC; and LOURDES BOOC, Respondents.
FACTS
The siblings Jesusa Booc, Candelario Booc, Columba Booc Ycong, Gervasio Booc, and Concepcion Booc Alcantara inherited five parcels of land in Lapu-Lapu City. Concepcion, who lived nearby, watched over the properties. The heirs of Jesusa, Candelario, Columba, and Gervasio filed a complaint for partition of these lots. In her answer, Concepcion alleged that only two lots were available for partition and that the action had prescribed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that the action for partition was imprescriptible. It determined the status of each lot: for Lot 1, only 422 sq.m. remained for partition; for Lot 2, Jesusa did not waive her share in favor of Concepcion; for Lot 3, the waiver by Candelario’s heirs bound only them; for Lot 4, there was no proof of partition; and for Lot 5, partition was in order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modifications, specifically finding that only 129 sq.m. of Lot 1 were available for partition and that the partition of Lot 4 was void. Petitioner Antonio Alcantara (substituting Concepcion) appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its factual findings regarding the partition of the subject properties.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the petition raised questions of fact, not of law, which are not reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45. The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive. The Court found none of the recognized exceptions to this rule present in the case. Therefore, the Court affirmed the 13 November 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals.