G.R. NO. 164787 - MARLENE CRISOSTOMO & JOSE G. CRISOSTOMO, VS. FLORITO M. GARCIA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant motion is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit. The defendants are directed to file their Answer within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of this order. [11] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [12] dated 11 September 2003 [13] which the respondent opposed. [14] The trial court denied the Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated 21 October 2003. [15] Undaunted, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari [16] before the Court of Appeals. [17] In a resolution [18] dated 20 February 2004, the Court of Appeals resolved to dismiss the petition outright stating that the defense of prescription being a question of fact, the same is not proper in a petition for certiorari . [19] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration [20] dated 22 March 2004 which was denied in a resolution dated 06 August 2004. [21] Hence, this petition grounded on the following: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ISSUE OF PRESCRIPTION INVOLVES A QUESTION OF FACT. II. EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT SAID ISSUE OF PRESCRIPTION INVOLVES A QUESTION OF FACT, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY REFUSING TO RESOLVE THE MERITS OF THE SAID PETITION BELOW. III. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED. [22] On the issue of whether the defense of prescription is a question of fact or law, the distinction is settled that there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. On the other hand, a question of law exists when there is a doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. [23] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. [24] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. [25] The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact. [26] In the case of Santos, et al. v. Aranzanso , [27] this Court has held that the question of prescription of the action involves the ascertainment of factual matters such as the date when the period to bring the action commenced to run. In Lim v. Chan, [28] this Court has again decreed that prescription is a factual matter when it held that without conducting trial on the merits, the trial court cannot peremptorily find the existence of estoppel, laches, fraud or prescription of actions as these matters require presentation of evidence and determination of facts. At first glance, applying thes