Flora Leoncio, et al. vs. Olympia de Vera and Celso de Vera

A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure may raise only questions of law, not questions 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 arises when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Where the resolution of the issue requires an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact and falls outside the ambit of a Rule 45 petition.

Petitioners Flora Leoncio, Felicia Leoncio, and Clarita Leoncio are the granddaughters and daughter-in-law, respectively, of the late Emilia Lopez. Respondents Olympia de Vera and Celso de Vera are, respectively, the niece of Emilia (being the daughter of the latter's eldest brother, Florentino) and Olympia's son. The dispute concerns Lot 4659, Cad. 344, Bustos Cadastre, a 2,007-square-meter parcel of land located at Poblacion, Bustos, Bulacan. Petitioners claimed that Emilia was the sole owner of the subject lot, while respondents alleged that Emilia co-owned it with her siblings, Macaria Lopez and Pascual Lopez, and that respondents had validly acquired the shares of Macaria and Pascual.

Petitioners Flora Leoncio, Felicia Leoncio, and Clarita Leoncio filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Ownership with Damages against respondents Olympia de Vera and Celso de Vera before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioners alleged that the late Emilia Lopez was the sole owner of Lot 4659, Cad. 344, Bustos Cadastre, a 2,007-square-meter parcel of land located at Poblacion, Bustos, Bulacan. They contended that one Lorenzo Ramos originally owned the subject lot and gave it to Emilia per a Relinquishment and Waiver of Rights executed by his heirs, and that tax declarations from 1933 to 1948 were issued only in the name of Emilia. Petitioners claimed they were not aware of any disposition made by Emilia in favor of any person.

Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that Emilia was not the sole owner of the subject lot, as she co-owned it with her siblings, Macaria Lopez and Pascual Lopez. Olympia bought Macaria's 2/5 share of the subject lot sometime in 1970, and Pascual's 1/5 share was bought by the Spouses Raymundo, which Olympia in turn bought in 1986. Respondents averred that the tax declaration for the year 1948 in the name of Emilia was subsequently canceled by Tax Declaration No. 5482 issued in the names of Emilia (2/5 share), Macaria (2/5 share), and Pascual (1/5 share). After Pascual sold his 1/5 share to the Spouses Raymundo in 1955, numerous tax declarations were issued in favor of Emilia, Macaria, and Spouses Raymundo. Respondents offered in evidence these tax declarations together with the deeds of sale executed by Macaria and Spouses Raymundo in favor of Olympia. After the sale, Olympia paid the real property taxes appurtenant to her 3/5 share of the subject lot and occupied the same.

The RTC dismissed the case for lack of merit, holding that petitioners failed to introduce in evidence any deed of transfer involving the subject lot from Lorenzo Ramos to Emilia, and that the tax declarations issued solely in the name of Emilia were subsequently canceled. The RTC also opined that since petitioners took possession of the subject lot only after Emilia's death, there was a great likelihood that petitioners were not truly aware of the status of the subject lot and the extent of Emilia's ownership over the same. The RTC further held that the evidence presented by respondents clearly established the validity of their claims over the 3/5 portion of the subject lot and that they were possessors in good faith. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling with modification, deleting the award of damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses, and additionally noted that the Relinquishment and Waiver of Rights allegedly executed by the heirs of Lorenzo Ramos was not offered in evidence.

• Sole Ownership of Emilia: Petitioners argued that the CA committed serious errors of law in holding that the subject lot is not solely owned by the late Emilia Lopez.
• Undue Reliance on Presumption: Petitioners argued that the CA gave undue heavy reliance on the presumption that Emilia could have transferred part of her ownership of the subject lot to her sister Macaria Lopez and brother Pascual Lopez to the extent of 2/5 and 1/5 portions, respectively.
• Laches: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in holding that petitioners are already barred by laches in pursuing their ownership over the subject lot against respondents.
• Failure to Uphold Ownership and Award Damages: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in failing to uphold petitioners' ownership of the subject lot and in failing to award them damages.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondents' arguments before the Supreme Court.

• Propriety of Rule 45 Petition: Whether the grounds raised by petitioners in their Petition for Review on Certiorari involve questions of law or questions of fact.
• Sole Ownership of Emilia: Whether petitioners sufficiently proved that Emilia Lopez solely owned the subject lot.
• Finality of CA Findings: Whether the Court of Appeals' findings of fact, affirming those of the trial court, should be disturbed.

• Propriety of Rule 45 Petition: No. The grounds raised by petitioners entail a review of the evidence presented, thus requiring an inquiry into questions of fact, which are outside the ambit of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Sole Ownership of Emilia: No. Petitioners failed to overcome the burden of proving their main contention that Emilia solely owned the subject lot, as they did not introduce in evidence any deed of transfer from Lorenzo Ramos to Emilia, and the tax declarations issued solely in the name of Emilia were subsequently canceled.
• Finality of CA Findings: No. Findings of fact of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are generally final and conclusive on the Supreme Court, and none of the recognized exceptions to this rule finds application in this case.

• Propriety of Rule 45 Petition: The Court reiterated the well-established doctrine that in Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised and passed upon by the Court. 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 arises when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising it; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence. A careful perusal of the grounds raised by petitioners entailed the review of the evidence presented, requiring an inquiry into questions of fact. Petitioners sought the Court's determination of the weight, credence, and probative value of the evidence presented, which were adequately passed upon by the RTC and the CA. The Court is not a trier of facts and will not weigh pieces of evidence all over again.
• Sole Ownership of Emilia: The Court noted that while tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The Court agreed with the CA ruling that petitioners failed to overcome the burden of proving their main contention that Emilia solely owned the subject lot.
• Finality of CA Findings: The Court reiterated that findings of fact of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are generally final and conclusive on the Court. While the Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule—including when findings are grounded entirely on speculation, when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, when there is grave abuse of discretion, when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, when findings of fact are conflicting, when the CA went beyond the issues of the case, when findings are contrary to the trial court, when findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence, when facts set forth in the petition are not disputed by the respondent, when findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record, and when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts—none of these exceptions found application in this case. The Court found no cogent reason or reversible error to disturb the common findings of the RTC and the CA, as these were amply supported by the law and evidence on record.

• 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 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 same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. 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. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the grounds raised by petitioners—which sought a determination of the weight, credence, and probative value of the evidence—were factual in character and thus outside the ambit of a Rule 45 petition.
• Tax Declarations as Indicia of Ownership — Tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, but they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The Court applied this doctrine in agreeing with the CA that petitioners failed to overcome the burden of proving that Emilia solely owned the subject lot.
• Finality of CA Findings of Fact — Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the trial court, are generally final and conclusive on the Supreme Court. The Court enumerated eleven recognized exceptions to this rule, none of which found application in the case, and thus declined to disturb the common findings of the RTC and the CA.

• "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 same 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." — This passage defines the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact, which is the controlling doctrine for determining the propriety of a Rule 45 petition.
• "Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact." — This passage establishes the test for distinguishing questions of law from questions of fact, which the Court applied in denying the petition.
• "While it is true that tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property." — This passage articulates the evidentiary value of tax declarations in ownership disputes, which the Court relied upon in affirming the lower courts' findings.

• Elenita S. Binay, in her capacity as Mayor of the City of Makati, Mario Rodriguez and Priscilla Ferrolino vs. Emerita Odeña, G.R. No. 163683, June 8, 2007 — Cited as authority for the definition and test distinguishing questions of law from questions of fact in Rule 45 petitions.
• Basmayor vs. Atencio, G.R. No. 160573, October 19, 2005, 473 SCRA 382 — Cited for the proposition that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and will not weigh pieces of evidence all over again.
• Buenaventura vs. Republic, G.R. No. 166865, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 271 — Cited for the doctrine that tax declarations are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.
• Solidbank Corporation/Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Spouses Peter and Susan Tan, G.R. No. 167346, April 2, 2007 — Cited for the rule that findings of fact of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are generally final and conclusive on the Supreme Court.

• Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure — The provision governing Petitions for Review on Certiorari, which limits the petition to questions of law. The Court applied this rule in denying the petition on the ground that the issues raised were factual in character.

N/A — The decision does not identify any concurring justices.

N/A — The decision does not identify any dissenting opinions.