ANTONIO K. LITONJUA AND AURELIO K. LITONJUA, JR., VS. MARY ANN GRACE FERNANDEZ, HEIRS OF PAZ TICZON ELEOSIDA, REPRESENTED BY GREGORIO T. ELEOSIDA, HEIRS OF DOMINGO B. TICZON, REPRESENTED BY MARY MEDIATRIX T. FERNANDEZ, CRISTETA TICZON, EVANGELINE JILL R. TICZON, ERLINDA T. BENITEZ, DOMINIC TICZON, J

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of plaintiffs ANTONIO K. LITONJUA and AURELIO K. LITONJUA and against defendants MARY MEDIATRIX T. FERNANDEZ, HEIRS OF PAZ TICZON ELEOSIDA, represented by GREGORIO T. ELEOSIDA, JOHN DOES and JANE DOES; HEIRS OF DOMINGO B. TICZON, represented by MARY MEDIATRIX T. FERNANDEZ, CRISTETA TICZON, EVANGELINE JILL R. TICZON, ERLINDA T. BENITEZ, DOMINIC TICZON, JOSEFINA LUISA PIAMONTE, JOHN DOES and JANE DOES, ordering defendants to: execute a Contract of Sale and/or Absolute Deed of Sale with the terms agreed upon by the parties and to secure all clearances from the concerned government agencies and removal of any tenants from the subject property at their expense to enable defendants to comply with their obligations under the perfected agreement to sell; and pay to plaintiffs the sum of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos as and by way of attorneys fees. [21] On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the respondents ascribed the following errors to the court a quo : THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS A PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE OF THE TWO LOTS ON NOVEMBER 27, 1995. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE VERBAL CONTRACT OF SALE AS CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ANTONIO LITONJUA AND AURELIO LITONJUA WAS UNENFORCEABLE. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LETTER OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT FERNANDEZ DATED JANUARY 16, 1996 WAS A CONFIRMATION OF THE PERFECTED SALE AND CONSTITUTED AS WRITTEN EVIDENCE THEREOF. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT A SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT FERNANDEZ COULD NEGOTIATE THE SALE ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER REGISTERED CO-OWNERS OF THE TWO LOTS. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE DECISION WITHOUT STATING THE BASIS IN THE TEXT OF SAID DECISION. [22] On February 28, 2001, the appellate court promulgated its decision reversing and setting aside the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the petitioners complaint, as well as the respondents counterclaim. [23] The appellate court ruled that the petitioners failed to prove that a sale or a contract to sell over the property between the petitioners and the private respondent had been perfected. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petitioners submit the following issues for the Courts resolution: WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT FALLS UNDER THE COVERAGE OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANTS DECLARED IN DEFAULT ARE BENEFITED BY THE ASSAILED DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. [24] The petition has no merit. The general rule is that the Courts jurisdiction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to the review of errors of law committed by the appellate court. As the findings of fact of the appellate court are deemed continued, this Cour