GR L 45159; (October, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45159 October 26, 1987
JOSE HERMO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ANDRES FLORESCA and ISIDRO FULGUERAS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Hermo filed an action to quiet title against respondents Andres Floresca and Isidro Fulgueras over a disputed area between their adjoining lands. A court-ordered relocation survey revealed the contested area was 11,122 square meters, larger than initially claimed. Hermo anchored his claim on a deed of sale to his wife, tax declarations, and a deed of confirmation from Floresca. Respondents based their claim on a 1943 deed of absolute sale to Floresca, a 1966 deed of sale to Fulgueras, and successive tax declarations describing the land as 20,000 square meters.
The trial court ruled for Hermo, giving greater weight to testimonial evidence of his and his predecessor’s continuous possession since 1922, thereby declaring ownership by acquisitive prescription under Act 190 and the Civil Code of 1889. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should review and overturn the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated the fundamental rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. Hermo’s petition essentially sought a second review of the trial court’s factual conclusions, which is not the function of the Supreme Court absent compelling reasons not present here.
The Court of Appeals, in the valid exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, thoroughly re-examined the evidence and found the trial court’s appreciation thereof erroneous. It determined that respondents’ documentary evidence—public instruments showing an area closer to the actual measurement—was more credible and entitled to greater weight than Hermo’s proofs. It characterized the testimonial evidence for Hermo as vague, uncertain, and sometimes referring to other land. The Supreme Court found no justification to disturb these factual assessments, emphasizing that the Court of Appeals is precisely tasked with correcting such errors in factual determination from the trial court.