Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*
G.R. No. 104482. January 22, 1996.
______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
81
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
82
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in
actual possession of the immovable property.
Same; Evidence; The mere fact that a party’s evidence was not
believed by both the trial court and the appellate courts, and that
the said courts tended to give more credence to the evidence
presented by the other party, is in itself not a reason for setting
aside such courts’ findings.—At most, it appears that petitioners
have shown that their evidence was not believed by both the trial
and the appellate courts, and that the said courts tended to give
more credence to the evidence presented by private respondents.
But this in itself is not a reason for setting aside such findings.
We are far from convinced that both courts gravely abused their
respective authorities and judicial prerogatives.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Facts
______________
84
85
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
The Issues
86
______________
87
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
______________
88
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
“Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who
may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should
be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to
the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the
Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to
the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in
the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith.”
______________
5 Nuguid vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 213 (March 13, 1989).
89
“We are not prepared to set aside the finding of the lower court
upholding Ricardo Tañedo’s testimony, as it involves a matter of
credibility of witnesses which the trial judge, who presided at the
hearing, was in a better position to resolve.” (Court of Appeals’
Decision, p. 6.)
______________
90
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
not believed by both the trial and the appellate courts, and
that the said courts tended to give more credence to the
evidence presented by private respondents. But this in
itself is not a reason for setting aside such findings. We are
far from convinced that both courts gravely abused their
respective authorities and judicial prerogatives.
As held in the recent case of Chua Tiong Tay vs. Court of
Appeals 7
and Goldrock Construction and Development
Corp.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
“The Court has consistently held that the factual findings of the
trial court, as well as the Court of Appeals, are final and
conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. Among the
exceptional circumstances where a reassessment of facts found by
the lower courts is allowed are when the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when
the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible;
when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of
facts; when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of
facts; when the findings went beyond the issues of the case and
the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee. After a careful study of the case at bench, we find none
of the above grounds present to justify the re-evaluation of the
findings of fact made by the courts below.”
In the same vein, the ruling in the recent case of South Sea
Surety and Insurance
8
Company, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al. is equally applicable to the present case:
______________
7 G.R. No. 112130, March 31, 1995; J. Flerida Ruth P. Romero, ponente.
8 G.R. No. 102253, June 2, 1995; J. Jose C. Vitug, ponente.
92
SO ORDERED.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0add4a2465a2e66b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13