SECOND DIVISION

ADELFA DEMAFELIS,
Petitioner,
- versus -
COURT OF APPEALS and
FERNANDO CONDEZ,
!"R" No" #$%#&'
Present(
)uisu*+in,, J., C-air.erson,
Car.io,
Car.io Mora/es,
Tin,a, and
VELASCO, 0R", JJ"
Pro*u/,ated(
Res.ondents" Nove*+er %1, %223
4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -4
RESOLUTION
)UISUM5IN!, J"(
On appeal are the Decision6#7 dated September 6, 2001 and the
Resolution6%7 dated February 8, 2002 of the Court of ppeals in C!"#R# S$
%o# &88&'# (he appellate court had re)ersed the Decision617dated *uly 28,
1''& of the Re+ional (rial Court ,R(C-, .ranch 2/0, $ara1a2ue City#
(he facts of the case are as follo3s4
On pril 1/, 1'8/, petitioner delfa Demafelis bou+ht from the heirs of
5ermo+enes Rodri+ue6 a 1&&!s2uare meter parcel of land, part of a lar+er
undi)ided parcel, 7ot %o# $su!108&'6 co)ered by (a9 Declaration %o# D!010!
0/180# (he land is situated in the .arrio of San Dionisio, $ara1a2ue City#
$etitioner said that she had allo3ed respondent Fernando Conde6 to stay in
the property but later, she as:ed respondent to )acate the property#
5o3e)er, respondent did not lea)e# (hus, she filed 3ith the ;etropolitan
(rial Court ,;e(C-, .ranch /8, $ara1a2ue City, a complaint for e<ectment
a+ainst respondent#
Respondent for his part maintains that on ;arch /, 1'88, he bou+ht the
property from ntonio F# .ernabe6'7 and that he had stayed in the said
property as early as 1'8&, e)en before he ac2uired it from .ernabe#
(he ;e(C ordered respondent=s e)iction#6$7 Respondent appealed to the
R(C 3hich affirmed the findin+s of the ;e(C# (he dispositi)e portion of the
decision reads4
>5?R?FOR?, the decision of the court a 2uo is hereby affirmed in its
entirety, and that, the court a 2uo is hereby ordered to issue a 3rit of
e9ecution in fa)or of the @petitionerA#
SO ORD?R?D#6&7
Respondent appealed to the Court of ppeals, as:in+ 3hether the
affirmation by the R(C of the decision of the ;e(C 3as proper under the
circumstances#637 (he Court of ppeals held4
Comparin+ the t3o lots, i#e#, /& s2uare meters alle+edly purchased by
petitioner from ntonio .ernabe, *r#, and the 11& s2uare meters portion
alle+edly bou+ht by respondent from Bsmael Fa)ila, it appears that the lot
sold by Fa)ila to .ernabe on ;arch /, 1''8, 3hich consists of 11&,182
s2uare meters, a portion of /& s2uare meters of 3hich 3as in turn sold by
.ernabe to petitioner Condes, is described as Lot #, Psu-$$8'2, and
co)ered by (C( %o# 2/2# On the other hand, the lot sold by Fa)ila to
respondent Demafelis 3ith an area of 11& s2uare meters is a portion of the
86,820 s2uare meters :no3n asLot No" Psu-#21$8%, and co)ered by (a9
Declaration %o# 010!0/180# On the basis of the $su number alone, it sho3s
that the ori+in of the lot claimed by petitioner is different from the ori+in of
the lot claimed by respondent#
Correspondin+ly, there is no certainty as to the identity of the property
purchased by petitioner and that of respondent, e9cept the bare contracts
e9ecuted in their fa)or# 5ad there been a relocation sur)ey of the boundaries
of the property in 2uestion, the contro)ersy as to the identity of the lot
sub<ect matter of the instant case 3ould ha)e been a)oided# Bf there is no
identity bet3een the property purchased by petitioner and the property
purchased by respondent, the instant case for e<ectment 3ill not prosper as
the parties ha)e e9clusi)e ri+hts o)er their respecti)e property#
9:EREFORE, the Decision, dated *uly 28, 1''&, of the Re+ional (rial Court
affirmin+ the Decision, dated ;arch 12, 1''&, of the ;etropolitan (rial Court
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE# Ci)il Case %o# '216 of the ;@eA(C, .ranch
/8, $ara1a2ue City, is DISMISSED#
SO ORD?R?D#6;7
(he Court of ppeals later denied petitioner=s subse2uent motion for
reconsideration#687
5ence, the instant petition, 3hich raises the follo3in+ issues4
B#
>5?(5?R OR %O( (5? 5O%OR.7? COCR( OF $$?7S, S?D?%(5
DBDBSBO% >?%( .?EO%D (5? BSSC?S RBS?D B% (5? $?(B(BO% FOR
R?DB?> B% R?%D?RB%" (5? D?CBSBO% SOC"5( (O .? R?DB?>?D#
BB#
>5?(5?R OR %O( (5? 5O%OR.7? COCR( OF $$?7S, S?D?%(5
DBDBSBO% ?RR?D B% B(S FB%DB%"S (5( (5?R? BS %O BD?%(B(E OF (5?
$RO$?R(E SC.*?C( OF ?*?C(;?%( .?B%" CO%(RRE (O (5? ?DBD?%C?
O% R?CORD#
BBB#
>5?(5?R OR %O( (5? 5O%OR.7? COCR( OF $$?7S, S?D?%(5
DBDBSBO% ?RR?D B% CO%C7CDB%" (5( (5? DOCC;?%( OF S7? B% FDOR
OF R?S$O%D?%( F?R%%DO CO%D?S (R%SF?RR?D O>%?RS5B$
CO%(RRE (O (5? FB%DB%"S OF (5? 7O>?R COCR( (5( (5? DOCC;?%(
%;?7E4 FGSC%DC% S .B7B5% %" 7C$H BS C(C77E % "R??;?%(
(O ?%(?R B%(O CO%(RC( (O S?77 %D DBD %O( (R%SF?R (5?
O>%?RS5B$ OF (5? 7O( SC.*?C( (5?R?B%#
BD#
>5?(5?R OR %O( (5? 5O%OR.7? COCR( OF $$?7S, S?D?%(5
DBDBSBO% ?RR?D B% %O( R?;%DB%" (5? CS? (O (5? COCR( OF ORB"B%
FOR (5? $CR$OS? OF ?S(.7BS5B%" BD?%(B(E OF (5? $RO$?R(E R(5?R
(5% DBS;BSSB%" OC(RB"5( CBDB7 CS? %O# '216 OF (5? ;@eA(C,
.R%C5 /8, $RIJC? CB(E#6#27
;ore simply stated, the issues for resolution no3 are4 ,1- Did the Court of
ppeals err in +oin+ beyond the issues raised in the petition for re)ie3K ,2-
Did the Court of ppeals err in findin+ that the identity of the property in
2uestion has not been establishedK ,8- 7astly, did the Court of ppeals err in
concludin+ that the document of sale in fa)or of respondent transferred
o3nershipK
On the first issue, petitioner contends that a re)ie3 of the ar+uments of
respondent in the ;e(C 3ould clearly re)eal that the matter of identity of
the property sub<ect of e<ectment 3as not raised# Bn fact, the first time that
the matter surfaced 3as 3hen the Court of ppeals rendered the decision
3hich is sou+ht to be re)ie3ed in this appeal#6##7
Respondent, on the other hand, states that the Court of ppeals is clothed
3ith ample authority to re)ie3 matters althou+h not assi+ned as errors if
their consideration is necessary in arri)in+ at a <ust decision#6#%7
(he pertinent rule is Section 8, Rule &1 of the Re)ised Rules of Court# Bt
states4
SEC" ;. Questions that may be decided# K %o error 3hich does not affect the
<urisdiction o)er the sub<ect matter or the )alidity of the <ud+ment appealed
from or the proceedin+s therein 3ill be considered unless stated in the
assi+nment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assi+ned error
and properly ar+ued in the brief, sa)e as the court may pass upon plain
errors and clerical errors#
Bn se)eral cases 3e ha)e also e9plained that the Court of ppeals is imbued
3ith sufficient authority and discretion to re)ie3 matters, not other3ise
assi+ned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary
in arri)in+ at a complete and <ust resolution of the case or to ser)e the
interests of <ustice or to a)oid dispensin+ piecemeal <ustice#
6#17 Bn Sesbreo v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals6#'7 3e held that
an appellate court has an inherent authority to re)ie3 unassi+ned
errors, e.g. ,1- 3hich are closely related to an error properly raisedL ,2-
upon 3hich the determination of the error properly assi+ned is dependentL
or ,8- 3here the Court finds that consideration of them is necessary in
arri)in+ at a <ust decision of the case#6#$7
>e note that the issue raised in the court a quo 3as4
>hether the affirmance by the Re+ional (rial Court, .ranch 2/0, $ara1a2ue
City, of the decision of the ;etropolitan (rial Court, .ranch /8, $ara1a2ue
City is proper under the circumstances#6#&7
$atently, the matter of identity of the property sub<ect of e<ectment is closely
related to the error raised# ?)en the petitioner herself in her ;emorandum
admitted that the issue raised 3as broad enou+h to co)er a lot of issues#
6#37 5ere therefore, the resolution of the assi+ned error is dependent on
the matter of identity of the property sub<ect of e<ectment, and the
identification of the property is necessary in arri)in+ at a <ust decision of the
case# (hus, 3e a+ree that the appellate court did not err in tac:lin+ the
issue#
On the second issue, petitioner contends that the Court of ppeals simply
o)erloo:ed the e9istence of the 7ocation $lan submitted in e)idence by
petitioner in the lo3er court 3hen it found that there 3as no identity of the
property sub<ect of e<ectment#6#;7
Respondent counters that the issue as to the identity of the sub<ect land is a
2uestion of fact already determined by the appellate court 3hich cannot be
raised in a petition for re)ie3 on certiorari and cannot be disturbed by this
Court unless those findin+s are not supported by the e)idence#6#87
Bn the case of Towne City !evelopment Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
6%27 the Court said that there is a 2uestion of fact 3hen a doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alle+ed facts, 3hile there
is a 2uestion of la3 3hen such doubt or difference refers to 3hat the la3 is
on a certain state of facts#6%#7 (he identity of the sub<ect land is a factual
findin+ supported by e)idence, hence, cannot be disturbed in this petition#
>e are bound by this factual findin+ of the appellate court, and cannot
re)ie3 a+ain the credibility of 3itnesses and calibrate the probati)e )alue of
the e)idence on record#6%%7
t this <uncture, it is 3orthy to note that the petitioner=s 7ocation $lan 3as
not e)en mentioned in her Complaint6%17 before the ;e(C# %or 3as it
attached to her ;otion for Reconsideration and Reply to Comment in the
Court of ppeals 3hen she raised this as the main +round for the
reconsideration of the Court of ppeals= decision# .ut
assumin+ arguendo that the 7ocation $lan 3as attached, there is still not
enou+h reason to say that the Court of ppeals o)erloo:ed the 7ocation $lan
submitted by petitioner# 7endin+ more credence to the e)idence of one party
does not necessarily mean o)erloo:in+ the e)idence of the other#
On the third issue, petitioner contends that the statement of the Court of
ppeals that respondent 3as the o3ner of the lot that he alle+edly
purchased from ntonio F# .ernabe is contrary to the statements of the
lo3er courts 3hich should be bindin+ and conclusi)e upon the Court of
ppeals#6%'7 She further ar+ues in her reply that the findin+s of facts by the
Court of ppeals are sub<ect to re)ie3 by the Court#6%$7
On the other hand, respondent reiterates that the findin+s of the Court of
ppeals as to the lac: of identity of the sub<ect lot, are amply supported by
e)idence, hence, they should not be disturbed by the Court, as these are
no3 conclusi)e on the parties and are not re)ie3able by this Court#6%&7
(he trial court held that there 3as a contract to sell or conditional sale
bet3een .ernabe and respondent, 3hile, accordin+ to the petitioner, the
Court of ppeals implied that the parties had entered into a contract of sale#
Since there 3as an apparent conflict bet3een the findin+s of the Court of
ppeals and the trial court, 3e 3ent throu+h the records of the case#
(he "asunduan sa Bilihan ng #upa6%37 or "asunduan bet3een .ernabe and
the respondent reads4
S SB%C;%" ;GG7;4
:o si "inoon+ ntonio F# .ernabe, may asa3a na:atira sa &0 .onn st# .F
5omes, $arana2ue ;etro ;anila# ;ay!ari sa isan+ parcelan+ lupa na a:in+
pinahuhulu+an+ sa mababan+ hala+a#
n+ :abuan+ su:at n+ lupa ay humi+it :umulan+ sa /& metro :uadrado#
.ilan+ may!ari n+ lupa ay suman+ayon a:o sa @:asunduanA n+ bilihan n+
lupa sa muran+ hala+a#
:o si "inoon+ Fernando Conde6 may asa3a na:atira sa Sucat $arana2ue#
.umili n+ lupa :ay "inoon+ ntonio F# .ernabe sa muran+ hala+a# :in+
pon+ huhulu+an an+ lote sa mababan+ hala+a#
%a si "inoon+ Fernando Conde6 ay nan+an+a:o na an+
hala+an+$ 18,&&0#00 ,labin+ 3alo libo liman+daan liman+pun+ piso- ay
babayaran niya sa may!ari sa @loobA @n+A labin+ dala3an+ taon ,12 years- sa
hala+an+ $ 2&0#00 an+ hulo+ bu3an bu3an#
%a :un+ hindi ma:ahulo+ si "# Fernando Conde6 sa bu3aanan+ hulo+ siya
ay ma+babayad n+ multan+ $&0#00 isan+ bu3an#
Sa :atunayan, si "# ntonio F# .ernabe at si "# Fernando Conde6 ay luma+da
n+ayon i:a / ;arso 1'88 .ernabe Subd# Sucat $ar2ue#, ;etro ;anila#
,%ila+daan- ,%ila+daan-
"# ntonio F# .ernabe "# Fernando Conde6
%".B.B7B .C;B7B
7uma+da sa harap nina4
,%ila+daan- ,%ila+daan-
(he case of $ome% v. Court of Appeals held4
(o be sure, a contract of sale may either be absolute or conditional# One
form of conditional sale is 3hat is no3 popularly termed as a FContract to
Sell,H 3here o3nership or title is retained until the fulfillment of a positi)e
suspensi)e condition normally the payment of the purchase price in the
manner a+reed upon#6%;7
Bt 3ould seem that the "asunduan, sho3in+ payment by installment,
embodied a contract to sell or a conditional sale, reser)in+ o3nership in the
)endor .ernabe until the full payment by respondent of the purchase price#
5o3e)er, the fact that the "asunduan 3as a contract to sell does not
necessarily mean that the Court of ppeals erred 3hen it said Fa portion of
/& s2uare meters of 3hich 3as in turn sold by .ernabe to petitioner Conde6,
is described as 7ot 1, $su!&&'00, and co)ered by (C( %o# 2/2#H $atently, the
Court of ppeals implied only that o3nership had transferred to the
respondent 3hen it said this, a fact 3hich is not inconsistent 3ith the Deed
of Sale bein+ conditional at first# (hat the Court of ppeals concluded that
the document of sale or the "asunduan in fa)or of respondent transferred
o3nership cannot be inferred in its assailed Decision or Resolution#
9:EREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lac: of merit# (he
Decision dated September 6, 2001 and the Resolution dated February 8,
2002 of the Court of ppeals in C!"#R# S$ %o# &88&' areAFFIRMED#
Costs a+ainst petitioner#
SO ORDERED"
LEONARDO A" )UISUM5IN!
ssociate *ustice
>? CO%CCR4
ANTONIO T" CARPIO
ssociate *ustice
CONC:ITA CARPIO MORALES
ssociate *ustice
DANTE O" TIN!A
ssociate *ustice
PRES5ITERO 0" VELASCO, 0R"
ssociate *ustice
A T T E S T A T I O N
B attest that the conclusions in the abo)e Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case 3as assi+ned to the 3riter of the opinion of the
Court=s Di)ision#
LEONARDO A" )UISUM5IN!
ssociate *ustice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
$ursuant to Section 18, rticle DBBB of the Constitution, and the Di)ision
Chairperson=s ttestation, B certify that the conclusions in the abo)e
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case 3as assi+ned to
the 3riter of the opinion of the Court=s Di)ision#
RE<NATO S" PUNO
Chief *ustice
M Condes in some parts of the records#
@1A &ollo, pp# 22!28# $enned by ssociate *ustice .ernardo $# besamis,
3ith ssociate *ustices "odardo # *acinto and ?lie6er R# De 7os Santos
concurrin+#
@2A Bd# at 2'#
@8A C rollo' pp# &1!&&# $enned by *ud+e melita "# (olentino#
@0A Bd# at 28#
@&A Bd# at 01#
@6A Bd# at &&#
@/A Bd# at 18#
@8A &ollo, p# 2/#
@'A Bd# at 2'#
@10A Bd# at /6#
@11A Bd# at //#
@12A Bd# at 68#
@18A St. (ichael)s *nstitute v. Santos' "#R# %o# 10&280, December 0, 2001,
8/1 SCR 888, 8'0L +eirs of &amon !urano' Sr. v. ,y, "#R# %o# 1860&6,
October 20, 2000, 800 SCR 288, 2&/!2&8#
@10A "#R# %o# 106&88, ;arch 20, 1''/, 2/0 SCR 860#
@1&A Bd# at 8/0#
@16A &ollo, p# 20#
@1/A Bd# at //#
@18A Bd# at /'#
@1'A Bd# at 6&#
@20A "#R# %o# 18&008, *uly 10, 2000, 080 SCR 8&6#
@21A Bd# at 860, citin+ -aguiat v. Court of Appeals, "#R# %o# 1188/&,
October 8, 2008, 012 SCR &'1, &'6#
@22A Central Ban. of the /hilippines v. Castro' "#R# %o# 1&6811, December
16, 200&, 0/8 SCR 28&, 200#
@28A C rollo, pp# 22!20#
@20A &ollo, p# 82#
@2&A Bd# at &8#
@26A Bd# at 66#
@2/A C rollo, p# 28#
@28A $ome% v. Court of Appeals' "#R# %o# 120/0/, September 21, 2000, 800
SCR /20, /2/!/28#
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
[Back to Main]