Caranto vs. Caranto

Questions of fact, which require an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants, cannot be raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45; the resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances without reviewing or evaluating the evidence.

Rodolfo Caranto claimed to be the son of Juan C. Caranto, Sr. and Guillerma Lopez-Caranto, and the brother of Juan L. Caranto, who was married to respondent Anita Agra Caranto. In 1972, Rodolfo, Juan, and their sister Rizalina executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Guillerma Lopez-Caranto, adjudicating the subject property to Juan. Following Juan's intestate death in 1983, Anita executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication in 1993, transferring the property to herself and obtaining TCT No. 7884. Rodolfo subsequently asserted his rights over the property, claiming entitlement through inheritance and a Deed of Waiver of Rights executed by Rizalina in his favor. Anita contested Rodolfo's claim, denying his legitimacy as Juan's brother and asserting ownership through her own purchase.

• Nature of the Action: Rodolfo Caranto instituted a civil action for cancellation of title and reconveyance with damages against Anita Agra Caranto, seeking to cancel TCT No. 7884 covering a 347-square-meter parcel of land in Mandaluyong City, reconvey one-half of the property to him, and award attorney's fees.
• Alleged Relationship and Entitlement: Rodolfo alleged he is the son of Juan C. Caranto, Sr. and Guillerma Lopez-Caranto, with siblings Rizalina Caranto and Juan L. Caranto (Anita's husband). He claimed that under an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate executed on September 18, 1972, the subject property (covered by TCT No. 277297) was adjudicated to Juan. Following Juan's death intestate on May 22, 1983, Anita executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication on August 14, 1993, transferring the property to herself and obtaining TCT No. 7884. Rodolfo asserted that Rizalina executed a Deed of Waiver of Rights on January 16, 1990, relinquishing her rights over the subject property in his favor, thereby entitling him to one-half of the property as a collateral relative.
• Respondent's Defense: Anita countered that Rodolfo lacked cause of action and was barred by laches or prescription. She denied Rodolfo's legitimacy as Juan's brother, claiming Juan's mother was Dolores Lopez, not Guillerma Lopez-Caranto. She presented a Certification from the National Archives showing no record of Juan's birth in Makati City for 1935, and a Marriage Certificate indicating Juan's mother was Dolores Lopez. Anita claimed she purchased the property with her own money and denied misrepresentation in the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.
• Evidence Presented: Rodolfo presented a photocopy of the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Guillerma Lopez-Caranto, a Special Power of Attorney executed by Juan in favor of Rizalina, and the Deed of Waiver of Rights. Anita presented testimony from Dante Agra (her brother) that Juan disclosed Rodolfo was his illegitimate brother, and documentary evidence showing Rodolfo's birth certificate listing Guillerma Lopez as mother, while Juan's marriage contract listed Dolores Lopez as mother.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found that Rodolfo failed to prove his filiation with Juan, noting that the Extrajudicial Settlement did not suffice to establish sibling relationship, and the Deed of Waiver and Special Power of Attorney were inadmissible as mere photocopies. The RTC also noted Rodolfo failed to present Juan's birth certificate to disprove Dante's testimony regarding Juan's maternity.

• Estoppel: Petitioner maintained that Anita was estopped from impugning the relationship between Rodolfo and her deceased husband Juan, having allegedly recognized such relationship in previous dealings.
• Admissibility and Weight of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate should be given weight and credence even without Juan's signature, as Juan was the ultimate beneficiary thereof and the property was adjudicated to him by virtue thereof.
• Complete Ownership: Petitioner contended that assuming Juan's mother was Dolores Lopez while his mother was Guillerma Lopez-Caranto, the property should revert to him as the sole heir of Guillerma, especially in light of Rizalina's waiver of rights in his favor.
• Damages: Petitioner asserted that the award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees to Anita lacked factual and legal basis.

• Question of Fact: Respondent countered that the issues raised by Rodolfo were questions of fact involving the credibility and sufficiency of evidence, which were beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition.
• Failure of Proof: Respondent argued that Rodolfo failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that he was Juan's brother, having presented no birth certificates or other competent evidence establishing their filiation.
• Validity of Title: Respondent maintained that the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication was valid and that she was the rightful owner of the property.

• Nature of the Issues: Whether the issues raised by Rodolfo constitute questions of law proper for review under Rule 45, or questions of fact beyond the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for certiorari.
• Estoppel: Whether Anita is estopped from impugning the relationship between Rodolfo and her late husband Juan.
• Filiation and Entitlement: Whether Rodolfo sufficiently proved his relationship with Juan and his consequent entitlement to the subject property by inheritance or through the waiver of rights executed by Rizalina.

• Nature of the Issues: The issues raised were questions of fact, not questions of law. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while a question of fact exists when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Because Rodolfo's arguments required the Court to review the probative value and evaluate the evidence presented by the parties to determine whether he sufficiently proved his filiation and entitlement, they constituted questions of fact improper for Rule 45 review.
• Exceptions to the Rule: None of the ten recognized exceptions enumerated in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr. were present to warrant a review of factual issues. The findings of the Court of Appeals were not grounded on speculation, surmises or conjectures; the inference made was not manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; there was no grave abuse of discretion; the judgment was not based on a misapprehension of facts; the findings were not conflicting; the Court of Appeals did not go beyond the issues of the case; the findings were not contrary to those of the trial court; the findings were not conclusions without citation of specific evidence; the facts were disputed by the respondents; and the finding of fact was not premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
• Estoppel: The claim of estoppel was not established because it hinged on Rodolfo's failure to prove his cause of action by preponderance of evidence, which was a factual determination.
• Filiation and Entitlement: Rodolfo failed to discharge his burden of proving by preponderance of evidence that he was Juan's brother. The record was bereft of competent evidence, such as birth certificates showing they shared the same parents. The Extrajudicial Settlement and Deed of Waiver, being photocopies, were inadmissible, and even if admitted, did not prove filiation. The right to inheritance was therefore untenable for lack of basis.

• Question of Law vs. Question of Fact — A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while a question of fact exists when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence; if it can, it is a question of law, otherwise it is a question of fact.
• Burden of Proof and Preponderance of Evidence — In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is defined as the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side, synonymous with "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence," and means probability of the truth.
• Exceptions to Rule 45 Review — The Court may review questions of fact in a Rule 45 petition only under the following ten circumstances: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.

• "A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the question must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact."
• "In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who is required to establish his/her case by a preponderance of evidence."
• "Preponderance of evidence is defined as the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term 'greater weight of the evidence' or 'greater weight of the credible evidence.' It is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth."

• Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Bañas, 711 Phil. 576 (2013) — Cited for the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact.
• Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225 (1990) — Cited for the enumeration of the ten exceptions where the Supreme Court may review questions of fact in a Rule 45 petition.
• Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167 (2016) — Cited for the principle that factual findings of the appellate court are final and binding when supported by substantial evidence.
• Tan, Jr. v. Hosana, 780 Phil. 258 (2016) — Cited for the definition of preponderance of evidence.

• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — Governs appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, limiting review to questions of law.
• Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court — Defines preponderance of evidence and how it is determined in civil cases.

Carandang, Inting, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ.