G.R. No. 138251 - MAGDALENA BLANCIA, VS. LOLITA TAN VDA. DE CALAUOR. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, We declare the contract entered into by the parties as one of equitable mortgage. [4] On December 24, 1998, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision. [5] On March 5, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. [6] Hence, this appeal. [7] The Issue Is the deed of sale with right to repurchase executed by respondent Lolita Tan Vda. de Calauor in favor of Gilbert and petitioner Magdalena Blancia of a parcel of land with an area of 2,216 square meters, located at Culasi, Antique a pacto de retr o sale or an equitable mortgage. [8] The Courts Ruling We deny the petition. The issue raised is factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. [9] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, [10] unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule. [11] Petitioner failed to prove that the case falls within the exceptions. [12] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. [13] It is not our function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. [14] A question of fact would arise in such event. [15] Indeed, despite the alleged sale with right to repurchase, the vendor remained in possession of the property and the Tax Declaration was not transferred to the vendee. Moreover, after the expiration of the redemption period, the vendee did not institute an action for consolidation of ownership of the land. Even the complaint filed by petitioner for recovery, ownership and possession of the land was filed on March 2, 1989, long after the expiration of the right to repurchase the property. [16] Hence, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the transaction was an equitable mortgage, not a sale with pacto de retro . In fact, respondent tendered the amount of the loan to petitioner but she refused to accept payment. Respondent consigned the amount with the trial court. The Fallo IN VIEW WHEREOF, we DENY the petition and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. [17] We DISMISS the complaint in COMPLAINT in Civil Case No. 2324 of the Regional Trial Court, Antique, Branch 13. No costs. SO ORDERED.