G.R. No. 122427 March 13, 1997
BENJAMIN S. LAZA, DIONISIO S. LAZA, FILOMENA S. LAZA, MILAGROS S. LAZA AND JOSE S. LAZA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ELENA G. GOMEZ, ANA G. GOMEZ, CARMEN G. GOMEZ, AGUSTIN GOMEZ, JR., PORFIRIO V. SISON, IMELDA G. GOMEZ, NORA G. GOMEZ, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, the Laza siblings, filed an action for reconveyance against the heirs of Agustin Gomez and Porfirio Sison. They claimed ownership over a parcel of land identified as Cadastral Lot 10-A or 215 in Bayambang, Pangasinan. Their claim was based on a 1980 deed of sale where they purchased the property from Venustiano Tan, who had earlier acquired it from the Gomez heirs via a 1976 deed of sale. The petitioners were issued TCT No. 150270. However, in 1987, the same Gomez heirs executed another deed of extra-judicial partition and conveyed a property also described as Lot 10-A or 215 to respondent Porfirio Sison as payment for legal services, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. 167909 in his name.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Lazas, declaring that the lot sold to Tan (and subsequently to them) was the same property later conveyed to Sison. The RTC thus voided the 1987 conveyance to Sison, ordered the cancellation of his title, and upheld the Lazas’ ownership. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. The CA found that the properties referenced in the two transactions were distinct, noting differences in location (Barrio Buayaan vs. Barrio Poponto), boundaries, and area as stated in the respective titles. The CA declared Sison the rightful owner and awarded him attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the property rightfully belongs to respondent Porfirio Sison, thereby reversing the trial court’s decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing errors of law, not re-examining factual findings. Factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals are generally binding and conclusive, especially when, as in this case, they coincide with those of the trial court but the CA, upon review, found clear errors in the lower court’s assessment.
The legal logic rests on the principle of finality of factual determinations. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and will not re-evaluate evidence absent compelling reasons such as a gross misapprehension of facts. Here, the CA meticulously reviewed the records and documents, particularly the certificates of title, and found conclusive discrepancies in the technical descriptions—specifically location, area, and boundaries—between the property described in the Lazas’ title and the one in Sison’s title. This established that two different parcels were involved. The Gomez heirs therefore retained ownership of the second parcel, which they validly conveyed to Sison in 1987. The trial court’s finding of identity between the two lots was a reversible error of fact, which the CA correctly rectified. Consequently, the award of attorney’s fees to Sison as damages for unwarranted litigation was upheld. The petitioners’ procedural challenge regarding their belated motion for reconsideration before the CA was rendered moot by the substantive resolution of the case on its merits.