BOBBY TAN, VS. GRACE ANDRADE, PROCESO ANDRADE, JR., CHARITY A. SANTIAGO, HENRY ANDRADE, ANDREW ANDRADE, JASMIN BLAZA, GLORY ANDRADE, MIRIAM ROSE ANDRADE, AND JOSEPH ANDRADE.

Ruling

Accordingly, the CA ordered Bobby to reconvey to the Andrades their share in the subject properties. [27] In view of the CAs pronouncement, the parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration. For the Andrades part, they sought the reconsideration of the CAs finding as to its characterization of the subject transaction as one of sale, insisting that it is actually an equitable mortgage. [28] As for Bobbys part, he maintained that the sale should have covered the entirety of the subject properties and not only Rosarios pro-indiviso share. [29] Both motions for reconsideration were, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution [30] dated March 3, 2006. Hence, the present consolidated petitions. Issues Before the Court The present controversy revolves around the CAs characterization of the subject properties as well as of the subject transaction between Rosario and Bobby. In G.R. No. 172017, the Andrades submit that the CA erred in ruling that the subject transaction is in the nature of a sale, while in G.R. No. 171904, Bobby contends that the CA erred in ruling that the subject properties are conjugal in nature. The Courts Ruling A. Characterization of the subject transaction. Settled is the rule that when the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the CA, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court, and may no longer be reviewed on Rule 45 petitions. [31] While there exists exceptions to this rule such as when the CAs and RTCs findings are in conflict with each other [32] the Court observes that none applies with respect to the ruling that the subject transaction was one of sale and not an equitable mortgage. Records readily reveal that both the RTC and the CA observed that there is no clear and convincing evidence to show that the parties agreed upon a mortgage. Hence, absent any glaring error therein or any other compelling reason to hold otherwise, this finding should now be deemed as conclusive and perforce must stand. As echoed in the case of Ampo v. CA : [33] x x x Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court and they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court, and in the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the evidence on record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand. [34] Consequently, the Andrades petition in G.R. No. 172017 must therefore be denied. B. Characterization of the subject properties. With respect to the nature of the subject properties, the courts a quo were at variance such that the RTC, on the one hand, ruled that the said properties were exclusive properties of Rosario, [35] while the CA, on the other hand, pronounced that they are conjugal in nature. [36] In this regard, the consequent course of action would be for the Court to c