GR 128563; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128563 ; March 25, 2004
EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., petitioner, vs. SPS. DESIDERIO & EDARLINA FROGOZO, and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Zosimo and Benita Asis owned a parcel of land in Manila covered by TCT No. 119203. On January 17, 1983, spouses Desiderio and Edarlina Frogozo caused the annotation of an adverse claim on the title, asserting a prior sale agreement and payment of earnest money. On August 28, 1986, petitioner Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. (ERDI) levied on the same property, annotating a notice of levy. Subsequently, on February 12, 1988, the Asis spouses executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Frogozos, leading to the issuance of a new title, TCT No. 178892, which carried the annotation of ERDI’s levy.
The Frogozos filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for the cancellation of the levy annotation on their new title. The RTC granted the petition. ERDI appealed this order to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC erred in ordering the cancellation. The appellate court, however, dismissed ERDI’s appeal, ruling that the issues raised were pure questions of law over which it had no jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed ERDI’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it raised only pure questions of law.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the appeal indeed involved only pure questions of law, which are not reviewable by the Court of Appeals. Under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of the RTC, except those falling within the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Appeals where only questions of law are involved fall directly within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or interpretation of legal provisions to a set of undisputed facts. In this case, the facts were not in dispute. ERDI’s arguments on appeal—including the efficacy period of an adverse claim, the scope of property subject to levy, and the effects of registration under the Torrens system—were all matters of statutory interpretation and legal principle. Consequently, the Court of Appeals acted in accordance with Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90, which mandates the dismissal of appeals erroneously brought before it that involve only questions of law. The Supreme Court also found that, in any event, ERDI’s substantive appeal lacked merit, as the Frogozos’ adverse claim, though initially temporary, had culminated in a consummated sale, rendering the subsequent levy ineffective against them.