G.R. No. 74833 January 21, 1991 THOMAS C. CHEESMAN, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ESTELITA PADILLA, respondents. respondents.
•
NARVASA, J.: p FACTS: Thomas Cheesman and Criselda P. Cheesman were marr arried on Decem ecembe berr 4, 1970 1970 but but have have been been separated since February 15, 1981. On June 4, 1974, a “Deed of Sale and Transfer of Possessory Rights” was executed by Armando Altares conveying a parcel of unregistered land and the house in favo favorr of “Cri “Crise seld lda a P. Chee Cheesm sman an,, of lega legall age, age, Filipino Filipino citizen, married married to Thomas Thomas Cheesman, Cheesman, and residing at Lot No. 1, Blk. 8, Filtration Road, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City . Thomas Cheesman, although aware of the deed, did not object to the transfer being made only to his wife. Thereafter, tax declarations for the property purchased were issued in the name only of Criselda Cheesman and Crisel Criselda da assume assumed d exclus exclusive ive manage managemen mentt and adm admini inistra strati tion on of said aid prop proper erty ty,, leasi easing ng it to tenant tenants. s. This This happen happened ed withou withoutt any protes protestt from from Thomas. Cris Crisel elda da sold sold the the prop proper erty ty to Este Esteli lita ta M. Padi Padill lla, a, without the knowledge or consent of Cheesman. The deed deed desc descri ribe bed d Cris Crisel elda da as bein being g “of “of lega legall age, age, married to an American citizen...” Subsequently, Thomas filed a suit in the CFI against Cris Crisel elda da and and Este Esteli lita ta Padi Padill lla, a, pray prayin ing g for for the annu annullment ent of the sale ale on the the grou ground nd that hat the transaction had been executed without his knowledge and consent. During During the Pre-tr Pre-trial ial,, the sale sale was declar declared ed void void ab initio and the the delivery of the property to Thomas as administrator of the conjugal partnership property was ordered. However, the judgment was set aside on a petition for reli relief ef file filed d by the the Estr Estrel elli lita ta,, grou ground nded ed on "fra "fraud, ud, mista mistake ke and/or and/or excusa excusable ble negli negligenc gence" e" which which had seri serious ously ly impa impair ired ed her her righ rightt to pres presen entt her her case case adequa adequatel tely. y. Estel Estelit ita a Padill Padilla a filed filed a supple supplemen mental tal pleading as her own answer to the complaint and a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court found that — o The evidence on record satisfactorily overcame the disp disput utab able le pres presum umpt ptio ion n that that all all prop proper erty ty of the the marriage marriage belongs belongs to the conjugal conjugal partnershi partnership p and that that the the immo immova vabl ble e in ques questi tion on was was in trut truth h Criselda’s paraphernal property; o The legal presumption in Article 160 could not apply because the husband-plaintiff is an American citizen and therefore therefore disqualif disqualified ied under the Constitut Constitution ion to acquire and own real properties; and o The The exer exerci cise se by Cris Crisel elda da of excl exclus usiv ive e acts acts of dominion with the knowledge of her husband “had
led Estelita to believe that the properties were the exclusive properties of Criselda and on the faith of such a belief she bought the properties from her and for value” and therefore, Thomas was estopped to impugn the transfer. Thomas appealed the judgment, as well as the act of the Trial Court of granting Estelita’s petition for relief and its resolution of matters not subject of said petition. IAC affirmed the Summary Judgment and found found no revers reversibl ible e error. error. Thomas Thomas Cheesm Cheesman an appealed to the Supreme Court.
•
ISSUE: Whether or not Thomas correctly availed of the remedy of appeal to SC? – NO
•
[COMMENTO: We’re familiar with the Persons related issue issue –– The foreigner foreigner husband husband has no capaci capacity ty or personality to question the sale of the property because it would be an indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition. Aliens are prohibited prohibited from acquiring acquiring lands of the public domain.]
•
•
RULING: An order of the CFI granting a petition for reli elief unde underr Rule ule 38 is inter nterllocut ocutor ory y and and is not not appealable. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
QUESTION OF FACT vs. QUESTION OF LAW: The conclusions made by the trial court were derived from evidence adduced by the parties, the facts set out in the pleadings or otherwise appearing on record—are conclusi conclusions ons or finding findings s of fact. fact . As distinguis distinguished hed from a QUESTION OF LAW—which LAW —which exists "when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts" — "there is a QUESTION OF FACT when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts;" or when the "query "query necess necessari arily ly invit invites es calibr calibrati ation on of the whole whole evid eviden ence ce cons consid ider erin ing g main mainly ly the the cred credib ibil ilit ity y of witn witnes esse ses, s, exis existe tenc nce e and and rele releva vanc ncy y of spec specif ific ic surrou surroundi nding ng circum circumsta stance nces, s, their their relati relation; on; to each each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation." The RULE is that only questions of law, distinctly set forth, may be raised in a petition for the review on certiorari of a decis ecisio ion n of the the Cour ourt of Appea ppealls presented to the Supreme Court. The The appe appell llat ate e juri jurisd sdic icti tion on of the the SC is limi limite ted d to reviewing errors of law, accepting as conclusive the fact factua uall find findin ings gs of the the lowe lowerr cour courtt upon upon its its own own assessment of the evidence. CA was created precisely to take away from the SC the work of examining the evidence, and confine its task to the determination of questions which do not call for the reading and study of transcripts containing the testimony of witnesses. The rule of conclusiveness of the factual findings or conclusions of the CA is subject to certain exceptions. However, none of which is present in the case at bar. Both the Trial Court and the IAC reached the same conclusions on the 3 factual matters, after assessment of the eviden evidence ce and determ determina inatio tion n of the probat probative ive
•
•
•
value thereof and these determinations will not be disturbed. o The facts on record adequately proved fraud, mistake or excusable negligence by which Estelita Padilla's rights had been substantially impaired; that the funds used by Criselda Cheesman was money she had earned and saved prior to her marriage to Thomas Cheesman, and that Estelita Padilla did believe in good faith that Criselda Cheesman was the sole owner of the property in question. An order of a CFI granting a petition for relief under Rule 38 is interlocutory and is NOT appealable. The failure of the party who opposed the petition to appeal from said order , or his participation in the proceedings subsequently had, cannot be construed as a waiver of his objection to the petition for relief so as to preclude his raising the same question on appeal from the judgment on the merits of the main case. Such a party need not repeat his objections to the petition for relief, or perform any act thereafter in order to preserve his right to question the same eventually, on appeal, it being sufficient for this purpose that he has made of record "the action which he desires the court to take or his objection to the action of the court and his grounds therefor." The prayer in a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 is not necessarily the same prayer in the petitioner's complaint, answer or other basic pleading. Once a petition for relief is granted and the judgment subject thereof set aside, and further proceedings are thereafter had, the Court in its judgment on the merits may properly grant the relief sought in the petitioner's basic pleadings, although different from that stated in his petition for relief.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioner.
