Juaban v Espina

G.R. No. 170049 March 14, 2008

Chico-Nazario, J.:

Facts:

The petition in this case is related with the other cases which the SC cannot simply overlook. In
the case of Bancale v Paras, Juaban and Zosa are the counsel for the Heirs of Bancale, the latter entered
into an agreement to sell the property to Espina. Thereafter, Espina paid the petitioner (Juaban and
Zosa) the amount of P 2,000,000.00 as an advance payment. Espina then designated CPDI as the vendee
of the said property. Consequently, Espina learned that the counsels filed a motion to fix their fess and
the court granted their motion as their fix fee the amount of P 9,000,000.00. The heirs of Bancale filed a
motion but then it was denied, and the court issued an order stating that it become final and executory.

A writ of Execution was issued to satisfy the order to Sheriff Gato that was tasked to implement
the order. However, the heirs of Bancale filed another motion but it was denied and Gato executed the
said writ and he issued a Notice of Sale on Execution. The subject property was sold at a public auction
to Juaban and Zosa for P 9,000,000.00. After sometime, an order issued by the RTC under a new judge,
reconsidered the motion to appeal filed by the Heirs of Bancale which was granted. Despite that the
order is currently on appeal, Juaban and Zosa wrote to Gato requesting him to execute a final deed of
sale in favor of the former. However, Gato had no longer authority to issue the final deed.

In the second case of Espina v. Gato, an administrative case against Gato filed by Espina, where
he was allegedly acting with manifest bias and partiality, was found guilty for grave abuse of official
function and manifest partiality amounting to grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice, for the reason that he levied the property unexplained. Subsequently, in the
third case where the respondent filed a complaint for injunction and damages with TRO for the sale of
properties levied by Sheriff Gato was given due course by the RTC. Thereafter, the respondent filed an
urgent motion wherein they tendered the amount of P10,962,347.20 as payment for the redemption
price of the subject properties, on the condition that if the application for preliminary injunction was
denied or if the case is finally resolved in favor of petitioners, the said amount shall be considered as
valid tender of the redemption price of the subject properties retroacting to the date of the filing the
motion, hence, the CA issued a resolution granting the same.

Issue:

Whether question of law may be raised in appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Ruling:

Yes. A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of
alleged facts. If the query requires a reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses or the existence or
relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is
factual. On the other hand, there is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the parties litigants. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the
issue rests solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Ordinarily, the
determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or both questions of law and fact is
best left to the appellate court. All doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of the appellate court
will be resolved in favor of the CA unless it commits an error or commits a grave abuse of discretion.

In case of doubt, therefore, the determination of the Court of Appeals of whether an appeal involves
only questions of law or both questions of law and fact shall be affirmed. As explained by the Court of
Appeals, it was only after the appellate court's painstaking review of the facts surrounding the dispute
that the "immoral, devious and patently illegal" acts which attended the transfer of the subject
properties to petitioners were brought to light. This Court finds no error or grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the Court of Appeals in making the aforesaid finding. No less than this Court, in the second
case, found that Sheriff Gato "showed manifest partiality in favor of Juaban and Zosa, giving them
unwarranted benefit, advantage and preference and that, with evident bad faith, he caused undue
injury to Espina. Irrefragably, respondents' appeal before the Court of Appeals involved not only
questions of law, because for the determination thereof, the appellate court was first called upon to
make its own findings of facts which were significant to its complete and judicious resolution of the
appeal.