Givero v. Givero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a portion of Lot No. 2618 of the Matnog Cadastre. The petitioners, led by Venancio Givero, claimed ownership of approximately 5,000 square meters of this lot. This claim was contested by the respondents, Maximo Givero and Loreto Givero, who asserted that the entire Lot No. 2618, comprising 12,952 square meters, was the rightful share of their late father, Rufino Givero, pursuant to an oral partition of properties among the eleven children of Teodorico Givero and Severina Genavia. The respondents, as Rufino's heirs, had been in possession of the property for decades until Venancio Givero began asserting ownership in 1982 by declaring the portion for taxation and erecting a fence. Procedural History: The respondents initiated a case on October 15, 1987, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, Irosin, Sorsogon, seeking quieting of title, recovery of real property, and damages against the petitioners. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them the owners of Lot No. 2618 and ordering the cancellation of Venancio Givero's tax declaration. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). On October 4, 2002, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision. The petitioners then filed the present appeal to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review of the CA's decision under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's findings, specifically questioning the existence and validity of the oral partition allegedly made by Teodorico Givero. They contend that if an oral partition had occurred, there would have been no need for Severina to execute a deed of donation for the disputed portion, suggesting the respondents' claim was solely based on a void donation. Furthermore, they argue that the CA's findings were contradictory and based on speculation. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petitioners were raising factual issues, which are generally beyond the scope of a Rule 45 review, and that none of the exceptions to this rule applied.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the RTC and CA in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Whether the existence and effect of the oral partition made by Teodorico Givero among his children were sufficiently established. Whether the Deed of Donation executed by Severina Givero in favor of Rufino Givero's heirs was void and contradicted the claim of a prior oral partition. Whether Venancio Givero was estopped from claiming ownership of the disputed portion of Lot No. 2618.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the appeal raised factual issues, which are generally beyond the scope of a Rule 45 review. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the established findings of fact by the RTC and CA. The Court also found no inconsistency in the respondents' claim of ownership based on both the oral partition and the deed of donation, explaining that the donation was a means to implement the partition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reviewing factual findings: The Court reiterated that an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law and does not allow a re-examination of factual findings made by the lower courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and accords high respect to the factual determinations of the RTC and CA, unless specific exceptions apply, such as findings being based on speculation, manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, or misapprehension of facts. In this case, none of the exceptions were present, and the findings of fact were consistent with the evidence. On the existence and effect of the oral partition: The Court upheld the RTC's finding, affirmed by the CA, that an oral partition of the properties by Teodorico Givero had indeed taken place during his lifetime. This finding was based on the positive testimonies of Luciano and Maria Givero, siblings of Venancio, who testified that the properties were assigned to each of the 11 children. The Court found their testimonies credible and not contradicted by substantial evidence presented by the petitioners. The Court noted that the oral partition was a factual matter, and the petitioners' insistence on its non-existence was an attempt to re-litigate factual issues. The Court also addressed the CA's findings regarding co-ownership, clarifying that the oral partition encompassed all properties, and the specific treatment of the Balocawe properties (whether partitioned or remaining under co-ownership) did not invalidate the partition of other properties, such as Lot No. 2618, which was clearly assigned to Rufino. The CA's reasoning was consistent with the overall evidence presented. On the validity of the Deed of Donation and its relation to the oral partition: The Court dismissed the petitioners' contention that the Deed of Donation executed by Severina Givero in favor of Rufino's heirs contradicted the oral partition. The Court explained that the oral partition was made by Teodorico, and Severina, as the surviving spouse and administrator of the younger children's shares, executed the donation as a means to implement the partition. The fact that Severina conveyed the property through a deed of donation did not negate the underlying oral partition established by Teodorico. The CA's explanation that the donation was a 'mere surplusage' that did not affect the heirs' rights was deemed appropriate, focusing on the substance of the transaction rather than its form. On the issue of estoppel: The Court found that Venancio Givero was estopped from claiming ownership of the disputed portion. As a witness to the 1956 Deed of Donation executed by Severina in favor of Rufino's heirs, Venancio implicitly acknowledged the ownership of Rufino's heirs over that property. Having participated in the delivery of Rufino's share to his heirs and being aware of the property's metes and bounds, he was precluded from later asserting ownership over it. This conduct demonstrated an acknowledgment of the respondents' rights, preventing him from asserting a contrary claim.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not disturb the findings of fact of the lower courts, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, unless exceptional circumstances warrant a review, as appeals under Rule 45 are limited to questions of law.