GR 88445; (June, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 88445 June 17, 1993
JESUS KHO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO SUSON, JR., RICARDO L. INOCIAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Ricardo Inocian owned several lots in Maria Teresa Village, Cebu City, with Roberto Osmeña as his broker. In 1971, Inocian and Osmeña sold Lot 1 to Mariano Suson, Jr. and later that year sold the adjacent Lot 2 to Jesus Kho. Lot 3 had previously been sold to Marilyn Ong. Suson built his house on Lot 2, believing it was Lot 1. Kho built his house on Lot 3, believing it was Lot 2. The mistakes were discovered in 1975. Marilyn Ong sued Kho for ejectment, resulting in Kho buying Ong’s lot as a compromise. Kho then filed a complaint for recovery and damages against Inocian, Osmeña, and Suson. Suson filed a cross-claim against his co-defendants. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Kho, ordering Inocian and Osmeña to pay damages and Suson to vacate Lot 2 and pay rentals. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision, ordering the cancellation and transfer of titles to reflect that Suson owned Lot 2 and Kho owned Lot 3 (though Kho had to yield to Ong’s prior right), and holding Inocian and Osmeña liable for damages to both Kho and Suson. Kho appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its factual findings and conclusions that Kho intended to buy Lot 3 and not Lot 2, and in ordering the transfer of title of Lot 2 to Suson despite Kho’s certificate of title.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. The issues raised were mainly factual, and in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, based on substantial evidence, are conclusive. The Court applied the doctrine from Bijis v. Legaspi, stating that if the words in a contract appear contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail. Despite erroneous registrations, the evidence showed Suson intended to buy and built his house on Lot 2, and Kho intended to buy and built on Lot 3 (though it was a double sale where Ong had a prior registered title). Therefore, the certificates of title could be rectified to reflect the parties’ true intentions. Kho’s claim that Suson was a builder in bad faith was rendered unnecessary to discuss.