G.R. No. 124605 - ENRIQUITO SERNA AND AMPARO RASCA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SANTIAGO FONTANILLA, AND RAFAELA RASING. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: "(a) Declaring the plaintiffs as the absolute and legal owners of the land in question particularly described and bounded and stated in paragraph two (2) of the complaint; "(b) Ordering the defendants to Transfer and Recover [sic] Original Certificate of Title No. 139 to the plaintiffs; "(c) Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiffs the amount of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; "(d) Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P5,000.00 as exemplary damages; "(e) And to pay the costs, without pronouncement as to moral damages. "Done at Alaminos, Pangasinan, this 5th day of August, 1992. "(t/s) Vivencio A. Bantugan "Judge" [6] From the decision of the trial court, both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. Respondents questioned the court a quo's failure to grant their claim for moral damages. On the other hand, petitioners claimed that the trial court committed serious error in the appreciation of facts and application of law and Jurisprudence. On August 22, 1995, the Court of Appeals rendered decision affirming that of the trial court. In a resolution dated February 26, 1996, [7] the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review. Petitioners submit these issues for resolution: (1) whether or not the appealed decision is supported by evidence; (2) whether or not the decision is in accordance with law and Jurisprudence. [8] The first issue is factual, which we cannot review on appeal. [9] However, petitioners make an issue of the fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the one who presided over the proceedings. "We have ruled in People vs. Rayray, [10] that the fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not himself the one who prepared, signed and promulgated the decision constitutes no compelling reason to jettison his findings and conclusions, and does not per se render his decision void. While it is true that the trial Judge who conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses, it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision. For a judge who was not present during the trial can rely on the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the trial as basis of his decision. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process." [11] As a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon us, and we will not normally disturb such factual findings. This is because in an appeal by certiorari to this Court, only questions of law may be raised. [12] And "for a question to be one of law it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them." [13] "To reiterate the distinction between the two types of questions: there is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference