SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226901. November 14, 2016.]
RURAL BANK OF SAN RAFAEL (BULACAN), INC., petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF VIRGINIA V. LLONILLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226901 — Rural Bank of San Rafael (Bulacan), Inc., petitioner, vs. Heirs of Virginia V. Llonillo, respondents.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for: a) lack of service of the Petition on the Court of Appeals (CA); and, b) failure to show that the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 105104 committed any reversible error in affirming the Decision dated May 22, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 79 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 585-M-2009.
Petitioner argues that the assailed Decision should have considered the subject deeds of Real Estate Mortgage (REM) in their totality, and not merely on the absence of the words "agent" or "attorney-in-fact." It insists that the findings of fact of the CA, affirming those of the RTC, are premised on the lack of these "measly words" rather than evidence that the Special Power of Attorney was executed by the late Virginia V. Llonillo (late Virginia) to authorize Spouses Lourdes and Joel Labao (Sps. Labao) to mortgage the subject property on her behalf.
Petitioner's argument is without merit.
Evidently, petitioner raises a question of fact challenging the CA's finding, affirming that of the RTC, that the deeds of REM executed by Sps. Labao on the subject property were signed by them in their personal capacity and not as agents of the latter.
Settled is the rule that the Court is not a trier of fact and only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 Petition. While there are established exceptions 1 to this rule, this Petition does not fall within any of them. In any case, the Court holds that the CA Decision, affirming the RTC, is well supported by evidence and by applicable laws. 2 Hence, the Court sustains the finding of the CA that the late Virginia cannot be made liable for the deeds of mortgage entered into by Sps. Labao in their own capacity, and not as her agents. Indeed, a mortgage executed by an agent who signed in his or her own name without any showing that he or she signed the same for and on behalf of the principal binds solely the agent, and not the principal. 3 ETHIDa
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed July 29, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105104.
The Motion to Dismiss dated October 3, 2016 filed by respondents' counsel is NOTED.
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from November 8-15, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Exceptional circumstances that would compel the Supreme Court to review the findings of fact of the lower courts are: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence of record; see Naguiat vs. Court of Appeals, 459 Phil. 237, 242 (2003).
2. Naguiat vs. Court of Appeals, 459 Phil. 237, 241, 242 (2003).
3. Bucton vs. Rural Bank of El Salvador, G.R. No. 179625, February 24, 2014, 717 SCRA 278-279, 290-291.