Heirs of Bienvenido and Araceli Tanyag vs.

Gabriel
669 SCRA 284, April 11, 2012
NATURE:
PETITION for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals.
FACTS:
The subject of controversy are two adjacent parcels of lann d located Taguig:

Lot 1 with an area of 686 square meters was originally declared in

the name of Jose Gabriel under Tax Declaration (TD) Nos. 1603

and 6425 issued for the years 1949 and 1966.

Lot 2 with an of 147 square meters was originally declared in the
name of Agueda Dinguinbayan under TD Nos. 6418 and 9676
issued for the years 1966 and 1967.

Petitioners claimed that Lot 1 was originally owned by Benita, although it was
declared under the name of Jose in the Tax Declarations. They presented the Affidavit
of Sale executed by Benita in favor of Gabriel and Cornelio. Benita was indicated as
the owner of Lot 1 in the affidavit. Florencia, who is the daughter of Benita, married the
son of Gabriel, Eliseo. Florencia was in possession of Lot1 when she sold it to
Bienvenido. A deed of sale was executed in October 14, 1964 between Florencia and
Bienvenido. From thereon, the Bienvenido possessed the land. The property was also
declared for tax pupropses under the name of Arceli, wife of Bienvenido. As for lot 2, it
was originally owned by Agueda which was later sold to Arceli.
Respondents claimed that they inherited the land from Jose Gabriel, the name
appeared in the tax declaration for the years of 1949 and 1966. As part of their
evidence, they presented the extrajudicial settlement of Jose Gabriel. It appear on the
records that the respondent have sold portions of Lot 1 to Sta. Barbara. The
respondents were able to obtain an Original Certificate of Title over the said property in
1998.
Petitioners filed a complaint for the nullity of the OCT, reconveyance and
damages before the Regional Trial Court. They alleged that respondents never

occupied the property and that the OCT was null and void. They also argued acquisitive
prescription over the property. On the other hand, the respondents filed a counterclaim.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint as well as the counterclaim
citing that the petitioners failed to establish ownership. The petitioners appealed to the
Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court stressing that
apart from the Affidavit of Sale, there was no evidence that shows the true ownership
of the petitioners. Petitioners filed for a motion for reconsideration which was also
denied by the Court of Appeals.
Aggrieved by the decision, petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule
45 which seeks to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners assail the
CA in not finding that the respondents obtained OCT in their names fraudulently and in
bad faith. They also claim to have acquired ownership of the subject lots by virtue of
acquisitive prescription.
ISSUE:
Whether or not factual issues may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari
HELD:
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court. In many instances, however, the Supreme Court has laid down
exceptions to this general rule.
The CA correctly observed that the only evidence of Benita Gabriels supposed
title was the 1944 Affidavit of Sale whereby Benita Gabriel claimed sole ownership of
Lot 1 as her inheritance from their father, Mateo Gabriel. However, the CA did not
address the issue of acquisitive prescription raised by the petitioners. The respondents
never occupied the whole area. Furthermore, petitioners alleged that they have been in
actual, open continuous, adverse and notorious possession for more than thirty years
which is equivalent to title. Such character and length of possession of a party over a
parcel of land subject of controversy is a factual issue. Settled is the rule that questions
of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, as only questions of law shall be raised in such petitions. While Supreme

Court is not a trier of facts, if the inference drawn by the appellate court from the facts is
manifestly mistaken, it may, in the interest of justice, review the evidence in order to
arrive at the correct factual conclusions based on the record.
In this case, the CA was mistaken in concluding that petitioners have not
acquired any right over the subject property simply because they failed to establish
Benita Gabriels title over said property. The appellate court ignored petitioners
evidence of possession that complies with the legal requirements of acquiring
ownership by prescription.