GR L 15897; (February, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15897 February 26, 1965
AUREA ESQUEJO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CERAPIO FORTALEZA and DANIEL FORTALEZA, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
This is an action for recovery of a residential lot in Sta. Maria, Binalonan, Pangasinan, filed by Aurea Esquejo against Cerapio and Daniel Fortaleza. The trial court found that the lot, along with three rice lands, had been donated by Pablo Fortaleza to Aurea Esquejo in consideration of her marriage to the donor’s son, Cresenciano. However, the trial court denied recovery because it found that Pablo Fortaleza was not the owner of the residential lot. The lot was registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 4322 in the name of Pedro Fortaleza. The court found that defendant Cerapio Fortaleza acquired the land from the heirs of Pedro Fortaleza via a deed of sale (Exhibit “2”). The plaintiff-appellant, Aurea Esquejo, disputes these findings. She contends the donated lot is different from the titled lot and is unregistered land formerly owned by Pablo Fortaleza. She claims Pablo Fortaleza later sold that same donated lot to Cerapio Fortaleza by a deed (Exhibit “F”), and that Exhibit “2” is a simulated sale for a different, titled property procured after the lawsuit was filed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in its factual finding that the residential lot purportedly donated to Aurea Esquejo by Pablo Fortaleza is the same land registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 4322 in the name of Pedro Fortaleza, and consequently, whether Pablo Fortaleza could validly donate property he did not own.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The appeal was taken directly to the Supreme Court on the premise that only questions of law were involved. However, the appellant’s arguments disputed the trial court’s factual findings. By appealing directly and stating only questions of law would be raised, the appellant waived all questions of fact under Rule 42, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court. Therefore, she could not dispute the lower court’s factual conclusion that the donated land and the titled land (Lot 700) were the same, despite some discrepancies in boundaries. The lower court’s finding that Pablo Fortaleza had no right, title, or interest in the registered lot (Lot 700) which he could lawfully convey was upheld. The principle that no one can dispose of that which does not belong to him applies. The decision denying recovery was affirmed without costs.