4 Cheesman vs Iac

G.R. No. 74833 January 21, 1991THOMAS C. CHEESMAN, petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATEAPPEATECO!RTan"ESTEITAPADIA, respondents.Estanislao L. Cesa, Jr. for petitioner.Benjamin I. Fernandez for private respondent.NAR#ASA, J.:This appeal concerns the attempt by an Americancitizen (petitioner ThomasCheesman)toannul forlack of consent onhis part the sale by his Filipinoife (Criselda) of a residential lot and buildin! to"stelita #adilla, also a Filipino.Thomas Cheesman and Criselda #. Cheesman eremarried on $ecember %, &'() but have beenseparated since February &*,&'+&. &,n-une%, &'(%, a .$eedof /aleandTransfer of#ossessory0i!hts. ase1ecutedby ArmandoAltaresconveyin! a parcel of unre!istered land and the housethereon (at 2o. (2eptune /treet, 3ordon 4ei!hts,,lon!apoCity) infavorof .Criselda#. Cheesman, ofle!al a!e, Filipino citizen, married to ThomasCheesman, and residin! at 5ot 2o. &, 6lk. +, Filtration0oad, /ta. 0ita, ,lon!apo City . . .. 7 ThomasCheesman, althou!h aare of the deed, did not ob8ectto the transfer bein! made only to his ife.9Thereafterand a!ain ith the knoled!e ofThomasCheesmanandalsoithout anyprotest byhimta1declarations for the property purchased ere issued inthe name only of Criselda Cheesman and Criseldaassumed e1clusive mana!ement and administration ofsaid property, leasin! it to tenants. %,n -uly &, &'+&, Criselda Cheesman sold the propertyto "stelita :. #adilla, ithout the knoled!e or consentof Thomas Cheesman. * The deed described Criselda asbein!. . . . of le!al a!e, married to an Americancitizen,. . ..;Thirty days later, or on -uly 9&, &'+&, ThomasCheesman brou!ht suit in the Court of First and7.Thatthetransaction re!ardin!the transferof their property took place durin! thee1istence of their marria!e as the couple eremarried on $ecember %, &'() and the?uestioned property as ac?uired sometime on-une %,&'(%.The action resulted in a 8ud!ment dated -une 7%,&'+7, &) declarin!void abinitio thesalee1ecutedbyCriselda Cheesman in favor of "stelita :. #adilla, andorderin! the delivery of the property to ThomasCheesman as administrator of the con8u!al partnershipproperty, andthepayment to himof #*,))).))asattorneyBs fees and e1penses of liti!ation.&&The 8ud!ment as hoever set aside as re!ards"stelita #adilla on a petition for relief =led by the latter,!rounded on .fraud, mistake andCor e1cusablene!li!ence. hich had seriously impaired her ri!ht topresent hercaseade?uately. &7 .Afterthepetitionforrelief from 8ud!ment as !iven due course,. accordin!to petitioner, .a ne 8ud!e presided over the case.. &9"stelita #adilla =led a supplemental pleadin! on$ecember 7), &'+7 as her on anser to thecomplaint, andamotionfor summary8ud!ment on:ay &(, &'+9. Althou!h there as initial opposition byThomas Cheesman to the motion, the partiesultimatelya!reedontherenditionbythecourt of asummary 8ud!ment after enterin! into a stipulation offacts, at the hearin! of the motion on -une 7&, &'+9,the stipulation bein! of the folloin! tenorA &%(&) that thepropertyin?uestionasbou!htdurin! the e1istence of the marria!e beteenthe plaintiD and the defendant Criselda #.Cheesman>(7) that the property bou!ht durin! themarria!e as re!istered in the name ofCriselda Cheesman and that the $eed of /aleand Transfer of #ossessory 0i!hts e1ecuted bytheformer oner@vendor ArmandoAltares infavor of Criselda Cheesman made no mentionof the plaintiD>(9) that the property, sub8ect of theproceedin!s, assoldbydefendant CriseldaCheesman in favor of the other defendant"stelita :. #adilla, ithout the ritten consentof the plaintiD.,bviously upon the theory that no !enuine issuee1isted any lon!er and there as hence no need of atrial, the parties havin! in fact submitted, as alsostipulated, their respectivememorandaeachprayin!for afavorableverdict, theTrial Court &* rendereda./ummary -ud!ment. dated Au!ust 9, &'+7 declarin!.the sale e1ecuted by . . . Criselda Cheesman in favorof . . . "stelita #adilla to be valid,. dismissin! ThomasCheesmanBs complaint and orderin! him .toimmediately turn over the possession of the house andlot sub8ect of . . . (the) case to . . . "stelita#adilla . . .. &;The Trial Court found that &) the evidence on record satisfactorilyovercame the disputable presumption in Article&;) of the Civil Codethat all property of themarria!ebelon!stothecon8u!al partnership.unless it be proved that it pertains e1clusivelytothehusbandortotheife.andthattheimmovable in ?uestion as in truthCriseldaBsparaphernal property>7) that moreover, saidle!al presumptioninArticle&;)couldnotapply.inasmuchasthehusband@plaintiDis an American citizen andtherefore dis?uali=ed under the Constitution toac?uire and on real properties> and9) that thee1ercisebyCriseldaof e1clusiveacts of dominioniththeknoled!eof herhusband .had led . . . "stelita #adilla to believethat the properties ere the e1clusiveproperties of CriseldaCheesmanandonthefaith of such a belief she bou!ht the propertiesfrom her and for value,. and therefore, ThomasCheesman as, under Article &%(9 of the CivilCode, estopped to impu!n the transfer to"stelita #adilla.Thomas Cheesman appealed to the (9) ofdisre!ardin! the 8ud!ment of -une 7%, &'+7 hich, nothavin! been set aside as a!ainst Criselda Cheesman,continuedtobebindin!onher> and(%) of makin!=ndin!s of fact not supported by evidence. All of thesecontentions erefoundtobeithout merit bytheAppellate Tribunal hich, on -anuary (, &'+;,promul!ated a decision (erroneously denominated,.0eport.)&( aErmin! the ./ummary -ud!mentcomplained of,. .havin! found no reversible error.therein.,nce more, Thomas Cheesman availed of the remedyof appeal, this time to this Court. 4ere, he ar!ues thatit asreversibleerrorforthe. andb) that furthermore, "stelita hadadmitted to statin! in the deed byhich she ac?uired the property a pricemuch loer than that actually paid .inorder to avoid payment of moreobli!ation to the !overnment>.&'9) to decline to declare that theevidence did notarrant the !rant of "stelita #adillaBs petition for reliefon the !round of .fraud, mistake andCor e1cusablene!li!ence>. 7)%) to hold that Thomas Cheesman had aived hisob8ectionto"stelitaBspetitionfor relief byfailin!toappeal from the order !rantin! the same>*) to accord to "stelita #adilla a relief other than thatshe had speci=cally prayed for in her petition forrelief, ie., .the restoration of the purchase price hich"stelita alle!edly paid to Criselda>. 7& and;) to fail to declare that Thomas CheesmanBscitizenship is not a bar to his action to recover the lotand house for the con8u!al partnership.77/uch conclusions as that (&) fraud, mistake ore1cusable ne!li!ence e1isted in the premises 8ustifyin!relief to "stelita #adilla under 0ule 9+ of the 0ules ofCourt, or (7) that Criselda Cheesman had used moneyshe had brou!ht into her marria!e to ThomasCheesman to purchase the lot and house in ?uestion,or (9) that "stelita #adilla believed in !ood faiththatCriselda Cheesmanas thee1clusiveoner of theproperty that she ("stelita) intended to and did in factbuyderived from the evidence adduced by theparties, the facts set out in the pleadin!s or otheriseappearin!onrecordareconclusions or =ndin!s offact. Asdistin!uishedfroma?uestionof lahiche1ists .hen the doubt or diDerence arises as to hatthelaisonacertainstateof facts..thereisa?uestion of fact hen the doubt or diDerence arises asto the truth or the falsehood of alle!ed facts>.79or henthe .?uery necessarily invites calibration of the holeevidence considerin! mainly the credibility ofitnesses, e1istence and relevancy of speci=csurroundin! circumstances, their relation> to eachother andtotheholeandtheprobabilitiesof thesituation.. 7%2o, it is a1iomatic that only ?uestions of la,distinctly set forth, may be raised in a petition for therevie oncertiorari of a decision of the Court of Appealspresented to this Court. 7* As everyone knos or ou!htto kno, the appellate 8urisdiction of this Court islimited to reviein! errors of la, acceptin! asconclusive the factual =ndin!s of the loer court uponits on assessment of the evidence. 7; The creation oftheCourt of Appealsaspreciselyintendedtotakeaay from the /upreme Court the ork of e1aminin!the evidence, and con=ne its task to the determinationof ?uestions hich do not call for the readin! and studyof transcripts containin! the testimony ofitnesses.7( Theruleof conclusivenessof thefactual=ndin!s or conclusions of the Court of Appeals is, to besure, sub8ect tocertaine1ceptions, 7+ noneof hichhoever obtains in the case at bar. the sale as to himas null and void. 9&