MONTEVILLA VS.

VALLENA
G.R. No. 234419. December 5, 2019.
FIRST DIVISION, J.C. REYES, JR.

Questions that may be raised in a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court; General Rule, Exception
As general rule, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court may
raise only questions of law. However, as an exception to the general rule, questions of fact
may be entertained in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court when the
findings of the trial court are contrary to that of the appellate court.

Proof; Instances when not required

Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court on judicial admission states that an admission,
verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof.

The Montevillas filed an ejectment case against the Vallenas. The former won in both the
MCTC and the RTC but lost in the CA which ruled that in an ejectment case, the plaintiff, the
Montevillas, must prove prior physical possession to recover the property even against an
owner. However, they did not offer any evidence in this case.

Appealing to the SC, the Montevillas argued that they need not present any proof of prior
possession since the same has already been admitted by the Vallenas in their Judicial
affidavits. The Vallenas contend that the issues raised by the Montevillas are not questions
of law but of fact and should not be entertained by the SC.

Can the Court entertain questions of fact under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court?

YES. Considering the different findings of fact and conclusions of law of the MCTC, RTC, and
the CA, the Court may entertain this petition, which involves a re-assessment of the
evidence presented.

In its decision, the CA is wrong in holding that the Montevillas did not offer evidence of prior
physical possession. Here, the Vallenas admitted in their pleadings that the Montevillas’
father was the original owner and alleged seller of the contested lot. A seller must have
exercised acts of ownership, such as physical possession and acts of administration, before
entering into a transaction over his property.

With the Vallenas' judicial admission, the Montevillas need not prove prior physical
possession, because upon Victor's death, his rights, including the right of possession, over
the contested lot were transmitted to his heirs by operation of law.