G.R. No. 149136 - JUAN ENDOZO AND SPOUSES JOSE AND DOROTHY NGO, VS. THE HEIRS OF JULIA BUCK.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is accordingly MODIFIED by deleting the awards of P100,000.00 for moral damages and P200,000.00 for attorneys fees. In all other respects, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED. With their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA in its equally challenged Resolution [7] of July 20, 2001, petitioners are now with this Court via the instant recourse, claiming that the CA erred - I XXX IN HOLDING THAT THE PROPERTY BEING CLAIMED BY BOTH THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT EVEN PROXIMATE, AND THAT PETITIONER JUAN ENDOZO FAILED TO SUBMIT A COPY OF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION OF THE 16-HECTARE PROPERTY WHICH ALLEGEDLY INCLUDED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. II XXX IN HOLDING THAT THE PRESUMTION THAT THE GRANT OF FREE PATENT AND ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BY VIRTUE THEREOF WERE REGULAR AND MADE AFTER ALL THE REQUIREMENTS HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE APPLICANT JULIA BUCK, HAD NOT BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE EVIDENCE OF PETITIONERS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS SPOUSES NGO HAD PRESENTED COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEIR CLAIM OVER DISPUTED PROPERTY. III XXX IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE APPLICANT JULIA BUCK IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC LAND LAW ON FREE PATENT. IV XXX IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE OF PETITIONERS HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED. V XXX IN NOT GRANTING PETITIONERS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, AND CONSIDERING THAT THE SUPPOSED CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT LAND AS FOREST LAND AND THE INCIPIENT REVERSION PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED, WOULD HAVE NO BEARING AND WOULD BE ADVERSED TO PETITIONERS CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT LAND. VI XXX IN FAILING TO RESOLVE SQUARELY THE ISSUE THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING THE DRAFT DECISION OF THE APPLICANT-DEFENDANT JULIA BUCK. We DENY . The main and decisive issue tendered by the petitioners is factual, revolving as it were around the identity and location of the disputed Lot 4863. For sure, the lot claimed by the petitioners as theirs had been determined by the trial court to be different from Lot 4863 over which Free Patent No. (IV-2) 017534 and later Original Certificate of Title No. 0-602 were issued to Julia Buck. The Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court, it being axiomatic that such findings, especially when affirmed by the CA, as here, are binding on this Court. It is not the function of this Court to re-examine the trial courts findings of facts. [8] Here, the trial court found: x x x evidence before this court actually shows that Juan Endozos family owns properties within Talisay, Batangas boundary below the smaller lot of defendant Julia A. Buck. It is not even near or adjacent to the lot now being claimed by plaintiffs which is a bigger lot with an area of 27,742 sq, m. If the claim is on the smaller lot adjacent to the Endozo property in Talisay, the claim would be more credib