G.R. No. 181623 - ALEJANDRO BINAYUG AND ANA BINAYUG, VS. EUGENIO UGADDAN, NORBERTO UGADDAN, PEDRO UGADDAN, ANGELINA UGADDAN, TERESO UGADDAN, DOMINGA UGADDAN, GERONIMA UGADDAN, AND BASILIA LACAMBRA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-106394 issued in the name of Juan Binayug is declared null and void and is hereby ordered cancelled. Original Certificate of Title No. P-311 in the name of Gerardo Ugaddan is declared still subsisting and valid. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Cagayan is hereby directed to cause the necessary annotations thereof. [Respondents are] hereby ordered to pay [petitioners] P100,000.00 as payment for the price of lots. For lack of merit, the claim for other damages is hereby dismissed. [16] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned RTC judgment arguing that the trial court contradicted itself in finding that the Absolute Deed of Sale dated July 10, 1951 is genuine and in existence, then nullifying TCT No. T-106394 in Juans name. Petitioners likewise asserted that a Torrens title such as TCT No. T-106394 is not susceptible to collateral attack. In an Order dated January 15, 2008, the RTC denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration due to lack of substantial argument. Aggrieved, petitioners immediately resorted to this Court by filing the instant Petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which presented a lone assignment of error: THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH IV OF TUGUEGARAO CITY GRAVELY ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 118 OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT INSTEAD OF APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 124 OF THE SAME LAW. [17] Before discussing the merits of the case, the Court notes that petitioners no longer appealed the RTC judgment before the Court of Appeals, going directly before this Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. According to Rule 41, Section 2(c) [18] of the Rules of Court, a decision or order of the RTC may be appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, provided that such petition raises only questions of law. [19] A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. [20] Petitioners raise and argue only one issue in their Petition: whether or not Section 118 of the Public Land Act is applicable to their case. They no longer challenge the appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions of the RTC. Consequently, petitioners resort directly to this Court via the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is in accordance with procedu