GR 127523; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127523 March 22, 1999
LEONCIA ALIPOON, MIGUELA ALIPOON, MORITA ALIPOON, NENITA ALIPOON, BENEDICTO ALIPOON, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARCELINA ALVAREZ, CARMEN PEÑARANDA, ROSITA GALANG, JOSE ALVAREZ, AGRIPINO ALVAREZ and FELINA CONCHA, respondents.
FACTS
The dispute concerns ownership of Lot No. 663 in Cauayan, Negros Occidental. The property was originally registered in 1931 under OCT No. 28203 in the names of spouses Fausto Alipoon and Silveria Duria, parents of petitioners. In 1933, OCT No. 28203 was cancelled and TCT No. T-17224 was issued in the name of respondent Marcelina Alvarez, who, along with her co-respondents, has possessed the lot since. In 1989, petitioners obtained a reconstituted title, OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.), over the same lot. Respondents then filed an action for annulment of this reconstituted title. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, upholding petitioners’ title. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring petitioners’ reconstituted title void and upholding respondents’ ownership evidenced by TCT No. T-17224.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its factual findings regarding the validity and existence of TCT No. T-17224 and OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.).
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition raised questions of fact, which are not permissible in a petition for review under Rule 45. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases is limited to reviewing errors of law. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding unless shown to be entirely unsupported by the record or glaringly erroneous. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstance. The Court of Appeals correctly found that the blurred signature on TCT No. T-17224 was still visible and that a certification from the Register of Deeds stating no title was “existing in the file” did not prove the title was never issued, especially considering records were likely destroyed during World War II. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s conclusion that respondents’ TCT No. T-17224, derived from the original OCT No. 28203, was valid, and the subsequently reconstituted OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.) in petitioners’ names was void.