You are on page 1of 1

Heirs of Simeon Borlado v.

Court of Appeals
Facts:
Simeon Borlados father, Serapio Borlado, was the owner of Lot No. 2097. Serapio
sold the said lot to Francisco Bacero for P300.00. After Franciscos death, Amparo
(his widow) sold the lot to Spouse Bienvenido Bulan and Salvacion Borbon in view of
the loan obtained by Francisco from the latter. Salvacion exercised continuous,
exclusive, uninterrupted adverse possession of the same lot from 1947 up until
1972, when the heirs of Simeon Borlado forcibly entered and wrested physical
possession from her. Salvacion filed a case of ejectment against Simeons heirs. The
municipal trial court ruled in favor of Salvacion and ordered the heirs to pay 100
cavans of palay annually or in the total amount of 1, 100 cavans of palay. Instead of
appealing the decision to the RTC, the heirs filed an action against Salvacion (the
case did not state what action). The RTC denied this action for lack of cause of
action which was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.
Issue:
Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that Salvacion was the owner of the lot? (Ito
talaga yung issue before the Supreme Court)
Ruling:
No. The issue is factual. In an appeal via certiorari, the court may not review the
findings of fact of Court of Appeals. When supported by substantial evidence, the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties
and are not reviewable by the Court.
Nevertheless, as a matter of law, the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in
holding petitioners (heirs) liable to pay respondents (Salvacion) 100 cavans of palay
every year from 1972 until they vacate the premises of the land in question. The
100 cavans of palay was awarded as a form of damages. We cannot sustain the
award. Palay is not legal tender currency in the Philippines.

You might also like