Republic of The Philippines Manila: Angeles v. Pascual G.R. No. 157150
Republic of The Philippines Manila: Angeles v. Pascual G.R. No. 157150
Republic of The Philippines Manila: Angeles v. Pascual G.R. No. 157150
157150 1 of 4
RESOLUTION
BERSAMIN, J.:
Under appeal is the decision promulgated on January 31, 2002 in CA- G.R. CV No. 61600, which involved a
dispute about the true location of the respective lots of the parties, with the respondents claiming that the petitioner
had encroached on their lot but the latter denying the encroachment.
Antecedents
Neighbors Regidor Pascual (Pascual) and Pedro Angeles (Angeles) were registered owners of adjacent parcels of
land located in Cabanatuan City. Pascual owned Lot 4, Block 2 (Lot 4) of the consolidation-subdivision plan
(LRC) Psd-951, a portion of the consolidation of Lots 1419-B-2B-3, 1419-B-2-B-4 and 1419-B-2-B-5, Psd- 9016,
LGC (GLRO) Cadastral Record No. 94 covered by Transfer Certificate Title No. T-43707 of the Registry of Deeds
of Nueva Ecija; Angeles owned Lot 5, Block 2 (Lot 5) of the same consolidation-subdivision plan covered by TCT
No. T-9459 of the Registry of Deeds of Nueva Ecija. Each of them built a house on his respective lot, believing all
the while that his respective lot was properly delineated. It was not until Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
(Metrobank), as the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale of the adjacent Lot 3, Block 2 (Lot 3), caused the
relocation survey of Lot 3 that the geodetic engineer discovered that Pascuals house had encroached on Lot 3. As a
consequence, Metrobank successfully ejected Pascual.
In turn, Pascual caused the relocation survey of his own Lot 4 and discovered that Angeles house also encroached
on his lot. Of the 318 square meters comprising Lot 4, Angeles occupied 252 square meters, leaving Pascual with
only about 66 square meters. Pascual demanded rentals for the use of the encroached area of Lot 4 from Angeles,
or the removal of Angeles house. Angeles refused the demand. Accordingly, Pascual sued Angeles for recovery of
possession and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cabanatuan City.
In the course of the trial, Pascual presented Clarito Fajardo, the geodetic engineer who had conducted the
relocation survey and had made the relocation plan of Lot 4. Fajardo testified that Angeles house was erected on
Lot 4. On the other hand, Angeles presented Juan Fernandez, the geodetic engineer who had prepared the sketch
plan relied upon by Angeles to support his claim that there had been no encroachment. However, Fernandez
explained that he had performed only a "table work," that is, he did not actually go to the site but based the sketch
plan on the descriptions and bearings appearing on the TCTs of Lot 4, Lot 5 and Lot 6; and recommended the
Angeles v. Pascual G.R. No. 157150 2 of 4
Fajardo as opposed to the survey plan prepared by Fernandez; and (b) the options laid down by the CA, i.e., for
Pascual either to buy the portion of Angeles house or to sell to Angeles the portion of his land occupied by
Angeles were contrary to its finding of good faith.
Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
I
The Court, not being a trier of facts, cannot review factual issues
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that the petition for review on certiorari "shall raise only
questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth." In appeal by certiorari, therefore, only questions of law may
be raised, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of
the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial. The resolution of factual issues is the function of
lower courts, whose findings thereon are received with respect and are binding on the Supreme Court subject to
certain exceptions. A question, to be one of law, must not involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or
difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.
Whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or should be rejected as feeble or
spurious; or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a
proposition in issue; whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to
contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not
certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their
spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such
gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not
reviewable by the Supreme Court whose review of cases decided by the CA is confined only to questions of law
raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized several exceptions to the rule, including: (a) when the findings are grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts; (e) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(g) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (h) when the findings are conclusions without citation
of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (j) when the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (k) when the Court of Appeals
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion. The circumstances of this case indicate that none of such exceptions is attendant
herein.
The credence given by the RTC to the testimony and relocation plan of Fajardo was conclusive upon this Court
especially by virtue of the affirmance by the CA of the RTC. Resultantly, the fact of Angeles encroachment on
Angeles v. Pascual G.R. No. 157150 4 of 4