G.R. No. L-63855 October 9, 1987
Cu Bie Mary Sydeco Tayengco, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Spouses Jose Tayengco and Salvacion Sydeco, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a protracted family dispute over valuable real properties registered solely in the names of the respondent spouses, Jose Tayengco and Salvacion Sydeco. The petitioners, comprising the mother and other siblings of Salvacion, filed an action for recovery in 1953, asserting that the properties were acquired using capital from a “Sydeco common fund.” This fund allegedly originated from a P10,000 trust left by the late Juan Sydeco for his family in 1927, which was later used to establish a textile business. They claimed Jose Tayengco was merely a trustee, holding the properties for the benefit of the entire Sydeco family in co-ownership.
After a 26-year trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners. It found that the starting capital for the family business indeed came from Juan Sydeco’s P10,000, and that the disputed properties were purchased with profits from that business during Jose Tayengco’s management. The court thus declared the petitioners as co-owners and ordered partition and an accounting. The respondents appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review and overturn the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision, on the ground that such findings constitute a grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. The Court reiterated the fundamental rule that its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing questions of law, and the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals are final and binding, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners failed to demonstrate such an exception.
The legal logic is clear: the core dispute hinged on factual issues—the existence of the common fund, the source of capital for the business, and the origin of the funds used to purchase the properties. The Court of Appeals meticulously re-evaluated the evidence and found it insufficient to prove the petitioners’ claims. It noted the lack of convincing proof for the initial trust, an unexplained six-year gap in the fund’s alleged use, and the subsequent dissolution of family business ties. It found the respondents’ claim of exclusive ownership more credible. Since no grave abuse of discretion—such as a capricious or whimsical disregard of evidence—was committed by the appellate court in reaching these factual conclusions, the Supreme Court had no authority to substitute its own judgment. The petition, being essentially a plea for a re-examination of facts, was therefore without merit.