GR 73800; (October, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 73800 October 18, 1990
NICANOR ACIERTO and FRANCISCO BAYUBAY, petitioners, vs. VICENTE GACIAS, ZACARIAS TELAN, GREGORIO DE LA CUESTA, CANDIDO TELAN and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Nicanor Acierto and Francisco Bayubay filed an accion publiciana in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan to recover possession of a parcel of land. They claimed a better right of possession as owners. The trial court ruled in their favor, declaring them owners, ordering their restoration to possession, and awarding damages for lost crops. The defendants, including the heirs of Vicente Gacias and Claribel Gacias, appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).
The IAC reversed the trial court’s decision. It found that the land was the subject of parallel administrative proceedings in the Bureau of Lands. The IAC gave weight to a final and executory adjudication by the Director of Lands dated April 8, 1965, which gave due course to the homestead application of Camila Gacias and cancelled the application of Tomas Acierto, the predecessor of the petitioners. The IAC concluded that Claribel Gacias, as a successor, was entitled to possession and ownership.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should review and overturn the factual findings of the Intermediate Appellate Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the IAC decision. The Court reiterated the axiomatic rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals (then the IAC) are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. The Court will not review such findings absent special and important reasons, such as a gross misapprehension of facts, a conclusion unsupported by evidence, or a conflict in factual findings between lower courts that necessitates a review to resolve the conflict.
In this case, the petitioners’ arguments essentially invited a re-evaluation of the evidence, which is a factual inquiry. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the general rule. The IAC’s decision was based on its assessment of the evidence, particularly the final administrative adjudication by the Bureau of Lands in favor of Camila Gacias. While the trial court reached a different conclusion, the IAC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence on record. The Supreme Court, having examined the record, found sufficient basis for the IAC’s conclusions. Therefore, the petition, which raised questions fundamentally factual in character, could not prosper. The IAC’s factual determinations were upheld.