G.R. No. 128325 . September 14, 1999.
SPOUSES RODOLFO CAOILI and IMELDA CAOILI, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROSITA VDA. DE SANTIAGO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Rodolfo and Imelda Caoili were lessees of a parcel of land and an apartment unit owned by private respondent Rosita Vda. de Santiago. On March 30, 1987, private respondent secured a loan from petitioners in the amount of P30,000.00, with the understanding that petitioners’ monthly rentals would be applied to the loan. On or about July 10, 1990, an unwritten agreement was made for the sale of the property to petitioners. On December 14, 1990, a “Receipt” denominated as an “Addendum to Agreement dated August 8, 1990” was signed by private respondent, acknowledging the sale of the property for P250,000.00. It stated that private respondent received P140,000.00, in addition to a partial payment of P60,000.00, with the balance payable upon delivery of a good title. Petitioners sent demand letters for the delivery of the title or a refund of double the amount received. Private respondent refused, prompting petitioners to file a complaint for collection of a sum of money. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering private respondent to pay P489,520.00. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and instead ordered private respondent to pay only P33,600.00. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the RTC decision by reducing the awarded amount from P489,520.00 to P33,600.00.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the petition raised a question of fact, which is not permissible in a petition for review under Rule 45, as the Court’s function is limited to reviewing errors of law. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive. The Court found that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the “Receipt” (Exhibit “B”) did not conclusively prove the existence of a perfected contract of sale, as it was merely an addendum to an unproven principal agreement dated August 8, 1990. The alleged sale was subject to a suspensive condition—the delivery of a good title—which never occurred; thus, no obligatory force arose. The Court of Appeals also correctly determined that the evidence only substantiated a total loan amount of P33,600.00 (P30,000.00 in 1987 and P3,600.00 in 1990) based on the receipts presented, and not the larger amounts claimed by petitioners. The award of double the amount had no legal basis. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.