G.R. No. 151369 - ANITA MONASTERIO-PE AND THE SPOUSES ROMULO TAN AND EDITHA PE-TAN, VS. JOSE JUAN TONG, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JOSE Y. ONG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered, finding the defendants Anita Monasterio-Pe, and Spouses Romulo Tan and Editha Pe-Tan to be unlawfully withholding the property in litigation, i.e. , Lot. Nos. 40 and 41 covered by TCT Nos. T-9699 and 9161, respectively, together with the buildings thereon, located at Brgy. Kauswagan, Iloilo City Proper, and they are hereby ordered together with their families and privies, to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the plaintiff and/or his representative. The defendants are likewise ordered to pay plaintiff reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the premises in the amount of P15,000.00 per month starting January, 2000 until they actually vacate and deliver possession to the plaintiff and attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00. Costs against the defendants. SO DECIDED. [5] Aggrieved by the above-quoted judgment, petitioners appealed the decision of the MTCC with the RTC of Iloilo City. In its presently assailed Decision, the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 24 affirmed in its entirety the appealed decision of the MTCC. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari . At the outset, it bears emphasis that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. [6] It is a settled rule that in the exercise of this Court's power of review, it does not inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence presented, consistent with the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. [7] In the instant case, a perusal of the errors assigned by petitioners would readily show that they are raising factual issues the resolution of which requires the examination of evidence. Certainly, issues which are being raised in the present petition, such as the questions of whether the issue of physical possession is already included as one of the issues in a case earlier filed by petitioner Anita and her husband, as well as whether respondent complied with the law and rules on barangay conciliation, are factual in nature. Moreover, the appeal under Rule 45 of the said Rules contemplates that the RTC rendered the judgment, final order or resolution acting in its original jurisdiction. [8] In the present case, the assailed Decision and Order of the RTC were issued in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Thus, petitioners pursued the wrong mode of appeal when they filed the present petition for review on certiorari with this Court. Instead, they should have filed a petition for review with the CA pursuant to the provisions of Section 1, [9] Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. On the foregoing bases alone, the instant petition should be denied. In any case, the instant petition would still be denied for lack of merit, as discussed below. In their first assigned error, petitioners contend that the RTC erred in holding that the law authorizes an attorney-in-fact to execute the required certificate against forum shopping in