Abordo v. Abordo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellants, children and widow of the deceased Isidoro Abordo, sued for reconveyance of Lot No. 2438. They alleged that Isidoro Abordo, prior to his demise in 1929, entrusted his brother, Roman Abordo (defendant-appellee), with filing an answer for the lot in Isidoro's name during his minority. However, Roman allegedly filed the answer in his own name and secured title in his name. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance found for the defendant Roman Abordo, declaring him owner of the lot. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The appellate court found that while Roman took possession of portions of the lot in 1929 and the whole in 1939 against the will of the widow and children, and that Isidoro was the declared owner for taxation purposes until 1949, the evidence was insufficient to establish an express trust due to contradictions and lack of a written instrument. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's finding of exclusive and adverse possession by Roman since 1939, based on an admission by the widow in a dismissed reinvindicatory action. The Petition: Plaintiffs-appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, raising questions on whether Roman's forcible possession in 1939 constituted a valid repudiation of trust justifying acquisitive prescription, and whether their action for reconveyance filed in 1959 was barred by prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the forcible possession of the land in dispute by the respondent Roman Abordo in 1939 was a valid repudiation of trust justifying his acquiring ownership by acquisitive prescription. Whether the action of the petitioners for reconveyance filed in February 1959 is barred by prescription.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and not reviewable. Since the Court of Appeals found no express trust established, the legal questions raised by the petitioners, which presupposed the existence of a trust, could not be resolved. The Court affirmed that if there was no trust, there is no trustee, and the rules of adverse possession may apply in favor of the appellee.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of repudiation of trust and acquisitive prescription: The Supreme Court emphasized that its jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court had explicitly found the evidence insufficient to establish an express trust due to contradictions in allegations and the lack of a written instrument. Therefore, the premise of the petitioners' argument—that a trust existed and was repudiated—was not factually established. Without an established trust, the concept of repudiation and subsequent acquisitive prescription based on that repudiation becomes inapplicable. The Court noted that the petitioners misconstrued a statement in the Court of Appeals' decision as a finding of fact, when it was merely a statement of possibility and an observation on the laches of the appellants. The Court reiterated that the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court. Consequently, the legal questions concerning acquisitive prescription predicated on trust repudiation could not be resolved. On the issue of prescription of the action for reconveyance: The Court held that since the Court of Appeals did not find an express trust to have been created, the action for reconveyance, which is typically based on the breach of such trust, could not prosper. The Court pointed out that the petitioners' legal questions assumed the existence of an express trust, which was precisely what the appellate court found to be unproven. If there was no trust, then there was no trustee, and thus no legal impediment to the application of the rules on adverse possession. The Court further clarified that the statement in the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the possibility of a trust was merely speculative and did not constitute a factual finding. The Court's focus remained on the established facts, which did not support the existence of a trust. Therefore, the claim for reconveyance, as framed by the petitioners, lacked the necessary factual foundation, and the issue of prescription, in the context of a trust, was rendered moot by the absence of proof of trust.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not review findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, and if no express trust is established, the rules of adverse possession may apply.