G.R. NO. 168220 - SPS. RUDY PARAGAS AND CORAZON B. PARAGAS, VS. HRS. OF DOMINADOR BALACANO, NAMELY: DOMINIC, RODOLFO, NANETTE AND CYRIC, ALL SURNAMED BALACANO, REPRESENTED BY NANETTE BALACANO AND ALFREDO BALACANO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE in the light of the foregoing considerations judgment is hereby rendered: DECLARING as NULL and VOID the deed of sale purportedly executed by Gregorio Balacano in favor of the spouses Rudy Paragas and Corazon Paragas over lots 1175-E and 1175-F covered by TCT Nos. T-103297 and T-103298, respectively; ORDERING the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-258042 and T-258041 issued in the name of the spouses Rudy and Corazon Paragas by virtue of the deed of sale; and Declaring the parcel of lands, lots 1175-E and 1175-F as part of the estate of the deceased spouses Gregorio Balacano and Lorenza Balacano. [11] In the assailed Decision dated 15 February 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the trial court, with the modification that Lots 1175-E and 1175-F were adjudged as belonging to the estate of Gregorio Balacano. The appellate court disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. We AFFIRM the appealed Decision for the reasons discussed above, with the MODIFICATION that Lots 1175-E and 1175-F belong to the estate of Gregorio Balacano. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant for whatever action her Office may take against Atty. De Guzman. [12] (Emphasis in the original.) Herein petitioners' motion for reconsideration was met with similar lack of success when it was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution [13] dated 17 May 2005. Hence, this appeal via a petition for review where petitioners assign the following errors to the Court of Appeals, viz : THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTED AND PARTIALLY EXECUTED CONTRACT OF SALE OVER LOTS 1175-E AND 1175-F PRIOR TO THE SIGNING OF THE DEED OF SALE. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, SERIOUSLY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDICIAL ADMISSION ON THE AUTHENTICITY AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF SALE MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS DURING THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, BASED ITS CONCLUSION THAT GREGORIO'S CONSENT TO THE SALE OF THE LOTS WAS ABSENT MERELY ON SPECULATIONS AND SURMISES. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT RULING ON THE ISSUE OF RESPONDENTS' LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE FOR NOT BEING THE PROPER PARTIES IN INTEREST. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING ATTY. ALEXANDER DE GUZMAN AND ANTONIO AGCAOILI AS NOT CREDIBLE WITNESSES. [14] At bottom is the issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in upholding the findings and conclusions of the trial court on the nullity of the Deed of Sale purportedly executed between petitioners and the late Gregorio Balacano. To start, we held in Blanco v. Quasha [15] that this Court is not a trier of facts. As such, it is not its function to examine a