Capili v. Combalicer

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 224643. June 15, 2020.]

NOLITO T. CAPILI, petitioner,vs.ERNESTO COMBALICER AND LUCITA COMBALICER, ILDEFONSO GURANGO, JR. SUBSTITUTED BY VIOLETA GURANGO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 15, 2020 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 224643 — NOLITO T. CAPILI, petitioner, versus ERNESTO COMBALICER AND LUCITA COMBALICER, ILDEFONSO GURANGO, JR. substituted by VIOLETA GURANGO, respondents.

The petitioner raised a question regarding the RTC and CA's appreciation of the evidence which is one of fact and is beyond the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not this Court's task to go over the proofs presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the RTC and the CA speak as one in their findings and conclusions. 1 While it is widely held that this rule of limited jurisdiction admits of exceptions, none exists in the instant case. 2 At any rate, the petitioner failed to sufficiently show any reversible error on the part of the CA in affirming the RTC's findings.

Here, there is preponderant evidence showing that the transaction is simulated and that the petitioner is a buyer in bad faith. As the RTC and CA aptly held, the following circumstances support such findings, to wit: (1) the gross inadequacy of the price; (2) the agreement to accommodate petitioner's application for dealership and the seller's presence at the meeting; (3) the petitioner's knowledge of the lease contract, its extension, and occupancy of the lessors; (4) the seller's refusal to confirm the sale; (5) the seller's grant of preferential right in favor of the lessors to purchase the lot; and (6) the petitioner's delay in demanding possession of the land and registering the sale.

Lastly, it cannot be said that the RTC and CA only relied on Ildefonso, Jr.'s testimony. To be sure, there are independent evidence supporting the allegations in the complaint. In any case, this Court has always accorded great weight and respect to the trial court's assessment on the credibility of a witness, since it had the full opportunity to observe directly his deportment and manner of testifying. The trial court is in a better position to properly evaluate testimonial evidence and this rule finds more application where the appellate court sustained the credibility of the witness, as in this case. 3

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Court of Appeals' Decision dated October 14, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 98992 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rogelia R. Gatan, et al. v. Jesusa Vinarao, et al., G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017; Heirs of Teresita Villanueva, et al. v. Heirs of Petronila Suquia Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. 209132, June 5, 2017; and Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 180853, January 20, 2009.

2. The recognized exceptions are: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) When the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) When the CA's findings are contrary to those by the trial court; (h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; (j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. See Ana Lou B. Navaja v. Hon. Manuel A. De Castro, G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015.

3.Gatan v. Vinarao, G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017, 842 SCRA 602, 618.