GR L 27961; (November, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27961 November 25, 1967
SOCORRO V. ALEJANO, EUGENIO P. ALEJANO, RODOLFO ALEJANO, EUGENIO V. ALEJANO, JR. and CONCEPCION ALEJANO DE PERLAS, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS G. JALECO, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s resolution dated September 28, 1967, which denied their petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. They argued that the denial deprived them of redress for alleged errors of law committed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, infringing their right to property without due process. The Supreme Court examined the petition and the Court of Appeals’ decision and found that the questions raised were essentially factual. The first alleged error concerned the Court of Appeals’ sustaining of a declaration of default by the trial court, which petitioners claimed violated their due process rights because they did not receive the summons. The Court of Appeals found that when their lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the second cause of action, it presumed receipt of summons, and by appearing generally (not specially to challenge jurisdiction), they submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, especially after the court dismissed the second cause of action and permitted them to present evidence at trial. The second alleged error challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding the validity of a real estate mortgage, which the Supreme Court also deemed a factual question.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court correctly denied the petition for review on certiorari, which petitioners claim raised substantial legal questions regarding due process and property rights, but which the Court found to raise only factual issues.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration. It held that the petition for review raised questions that were factual in character, not legal. The first assigned error, while framed as a due process violation, was correlated to factual findings by the Court of Appeals regarding receipt of summons and general appearance. The second assigned error, concerning the sufficiency of evidence on the mortgage’s validity, was inherently factual. The Court reiterated that dressing factual matters in legal terminology does not convert them into reviewable legal questions. Since the motion for reconsideration presented no new legal arguments, the denial of the petition stood.