GR 146937; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146937 ; January 23, 2007
GODOFREDO TORIANO, Petitioner, vs. GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR., DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and REUBEN IBARRETA, Respondents.
FACTS
On September 13, 1975, petitioner Godofredo Toriano sold a 669.32-square meter lot to respondent Generoso Trieste, Sr. Trieste later purchased an adjoining lot from Toriano’s sister and subsequently mortgaged the consolidated property to respondent Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to secure a loan. Due to Trieste’s loan default, DBP foreclosed the mortgage, and the property was sold at public auction to respondent Reuben Ibarreta as the highest bidder. In 1988, Toriano filed a forcible entry complaint against Trieste, alleging that in July 1987, Trieste had forcibly entered a separate 242-square meter portion adjacent to the sold lot. This complaint was later dismissed upon Toriano’s manifestation that he would instead file an action for recovery of possession and ownership.
Toriano subsequently filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership and for Declaration of Nullity of Contracts before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against respondents. The core dispute centered on whether the contested 242-square meter area was included within the boundaries of the original 669.32-square meter lot Toriano sold to Trieste. The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling that the disputed portion was indeed part of the land conveyed in the 1975 sale. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s factual finding that the contested 242-square meter lot is included in the 669.32-square meter property sold by Toriano to Trieste.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the petition raised a question of fact, which is not permissible in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such petitions is limited to reviewing questions of law. The determination of whether the disputed 242-square meter area forms part of the land subject of the 1975 deed of sale inherently requires an examination and evaluation of evidence—such as the boundaries, tax declarations, and the parties’ assertions—which falls within the realm of factual inquiry.
The Court reiterated the doctrine that it is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court. While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his case fell under any of these exceptions. Consequently, there was no compelling reason to disturb the uniform factual conclusions of the lower courts that the subject 242-square meter portion was included in the sale to Trieste.