Court of last resort

Decisions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) whether in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court (SC) only on pure questions of law (Rule 45, Rules of Court). If the appeal involves questions of fact or mixed question of fact and law, it must be brought to the Court of Appeals (CA) by means of ordinary appeal (Rule 41) or Petition for Review (Rule 42). So in deciding where to appeal, it is important to determine whether the issue to be raised on appeal is one of law or one of fact or a mixed question of law and fact. This case explains the difference between a question of law and a question of fact.

The case involved a 1,244 square meter of land located in the plush Dasmarinas Village co-owned by Rosa and his son Ben who was a priest belonging to a religious congregation. On March 14, 1989 Rosa and Ben executed a Deed of Donation conveying the said property to their Family Foundation. So a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in the Foundation’s name. On September 2, 1994 however after Ben left the congregation, got married and sired a son, both Rosa and Ben decided to revoke said donation by executing separate Deeds of Revocation of Donation and Re-conveyance of said property consented to by the Foundation through issuance of appropriate corporate resolutions. However, the Deeds of Revocation were not registered, so the property remained in the Foundation’s name. Then on September 28, 1999 Ben executed a Contract of lease over said property in favor of a certain Arab (Ahmed). In said contract, Ben as lessor, declared that he was the absolute owner of the property.

During all this time Rosa lived with Ben and his family. But starting the year 2000 the relationship between mother and son deteriorated prompting Rosa to leave Ben and his family.

Then sometime in October, 2000, Rosa filed before the RTC a complaint for Collection and Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute with Injunction against Ben and Ahmed. Rosa averred that it was only on August 16, 2000 when she discovered that Ben caused the annotation of an adverse claim on the TCT of said property claiming full ownership thereof by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 21, 2000 which she claimed was a falsified document as her signature thereon was forged and she never received its price of P20 million. So she also prayed that Ahmed be enjoined from paying the rentals to Ben and the latter from receiving them.

Ben denied his mother’s claim. He averred that he and his wife took good care of Rosa, providing and spending substantial amounts for her needs such that most of the rentals paid for the property went to her. In view of this, Ben said that he and his mother, Rosa agreed that the latter would convey her share over the property to Ben as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale. But when their relationship deteriorated especially when Rosa left because she detested his act of firing their driver, Rosa filed this case against him, Ben alleged.

 After trial, the RTC eventually dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction without adjudicating the case on the merits. When her motion for reconsideration was denied, Rosa went directly to the Supreme Court (SC) by way of a Petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on alleged pure questions of law. Was the action proper?

No. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. 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. Thus the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is whether the appellate court can determine the issue without reviewing or evaluating the evidence.

In this case the RTC did not decide the case on the merits and Rosa would want the SC to do so. Doing so however would require the examination by the SC of the probative value of the evidence presented. It thus becomes clear that the filing of the case directly with the SC ran afoul of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts which means that resort from the lower court to the SC will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy sought cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. The SC is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and by immemorial traditions. So Rosa’s petition should be denied (Latorre vs. Latorre, G.R. 183926, March 29, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]