G.R. No. L-23007 March 30, 1967
LAMBERTO RAMOS and CASIMIRA RAMOS, petitioners, vs. ROSITA RAMOS and ROMEO RAMOS, respondents.

FACTS

Rosita Ramos and Romeo Ramos filed an action for reconveyance against Lamberto Ramos and Casimira Ramos in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. They sought to recover a one-half pro-indiviso share of a parcel of land in Binmaley, Pangasinan, originally owned by the deceased parents of Lamberto Ramos. The trial court found that Lamberto Ramos had agreed with the plaintiffs’ mother, Balbina de Guzman, that the land would be held in common—one-half for Lamberto and the other half for Rosita and Romeo—and that it would be registered and converted into a fishpond. However, Lamberto breached this trust by registering the entire land under Original Certificate of Title No. 15763 in the name of his conjugal partnership with Casimira Ramos. The trial court ordered the cancellation of the title, execution of a deed of reconveyance for one-half of the land to the plaintiffs, and payment of damages and attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning several errors, including the trial court’s failure to give effect to a document, Exhibit “1”, which they claimed showed an agreement that the entire land pertained exclusively to Lamberto. In their brief, the defendants-appellants stated that the only remaining issue was “whether or not the defendants committed a breach of trust in registering the land in question entirely in their names.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision without expressly discussing Exhibit “1”. The petitioners (defendants-appellants) then filed this petition for review, alleging that the Court of Appeals completely ignored their assignment of error regarding Exhibit “1”, thereby violating Section 33 of the Judiciary Act and Section 4, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court, which require that every decision contain complete findings of fact on all issues properly raised.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error by failing to make complete findings of fact on the assignment of error concerning Exhibit “1”, allegedly in violation of Section 33 of the Judiciary Act and Section 4, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners themselves had defined the issue on appeal as being solely whether a breach of trust was committed. By affirming the trial court’s findings on that issue, the Court of Appeals resolved the appeal. The appellate court was not required to expressly state its opinion on the probative value of Exhibit “1”; its implicit rejection of the exhibit by giving credence to the opposing witnesses’ testimony was sufficient. The statutory duty under Section 33 of the Judiciary Act is to state findings on all issues properly raised, not on all assigned errors. Furthermore, on the merits, Exhibit “1” was not a deed of partition but merely an undated, ambiguous tabulation of properties, which did not help the petitioners’ case. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.