Cvpro Digest2
Cvpro Digest2
At the outset, it bears emphasis that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is limited to reviewing only errors of law. This
Court is not a trier of facts. Case law has it that the findings of the trial court especially when affirmed
by the CA are binding and conclusive upon this Court. Although there are exceptions to the said rule,
we find no reason to deviate therefrom.
6
By assailing the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed
by the CA, that it acted in bad faith, the petitioner thereby raised questions of facts in its petition.
The acts of defendant-appellant GSS in concealing from the Zuluetas [the respondent's
predecessors-in-interest] the existence of these lots, in failing to notify or apprise the spouses
Zulueta about the excluded lots from the time it consolidated its titles on their foreclosed properties
in 1975, in failing to inform them when it entered into a contract of sale of the foreclosed properties
to Yorkstown Development Corporation in 1980 as well as when the said sale was revoked by then
President Ferdinand E. Marcos during the same year demonstrated a clear effort on its part to
defraud the spouses Zulueta and appropriate for itself the subject properties
The petitioner's defense of prescription is untenable. As held by the CA, the general rule that the
discovery of fraud is deemed to have taken place upon the registration of real property because it is
"considered a constructive notice to all persons" does not apply in this case. The CA correctly cited
the cases of Adille v. Court of Appeals
14
and Samonte v. Court of Appeals,
15
where this Court
reckoned the prescriptive period for the filing of the action for reconveyance based on implied trust
from the actual discovery of fraud.
Plaintiff-appellee Eduardo M. Santiago categorically testified (TSN of July 11, 1995, pp. 14-15) that
he came to know that there were 91 excluded lots in Antonio Village which were foreclosed by the
GSS and included in its consolidation of ownership in 1975 when, in 1989, he and Antonio Vic
Zulueta discussed it and he was given by Zulueta a special power of attorney to represent him to
recover the subject properties from GSS. The complaint for reconveyance was filed barely a year
from the discovery of the fraud.
17