Case Digest (G.R. No. 152251)
Facts:
Manuel Valdez, Gil Valdez, Carmelita Valdez‑Bonsato, Genoveva Bonalos‑Bonilla, Isaias Bonalos and Magdalena Bonalos v. Guillermo Reyes, Julia Reyes‑Bustamante, Prudencio Reyes, Nepomucena Reyes‑Bustamante and Virginia Reyes‑Naraval, G.R. No. 152251, August 17, 2006, Second Division, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.The parties are all heirs of Doroteo Bonalos, who owned fourteen parcels of land in Burgos, Pangasinan and died intestate in 1937 after three marriages that produced several children and grandchildren. Petitioners are Doroteo’s children Genoveva, Isaias and Magdalena and three grandchildren by his first wife (Manuel, Gil and Carmelita). Respondents are other grandchildren by the first wife (Guillermo, Julia, Prudencio, Nepomucena and Virginia).
On January 25, 1994, petitioners filed a Complaint for Partition with Damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Alaminos, Pangasinan (Civil Case No. A‑2070), alleging co‑ownership pro‑indiviso of the subject parcels and alleging respondents were in possession and appropriating the produce, and had refused to deliver petitioners’ shares. Respondents answered, denying the allegations and asserting that the estate had been partitioned after Doroteo’s death, that petitioners had sold their shares to respondents and others, and that respondents had been in possession for more than thirty years.
On February 24, 1997, the RTC dismissed the complaint, finding that no property remained in Doroteo’s estate subject to partition and that petitioners’ shares had been transferred; the RTC relied on documentary evidence (Exhibits 1–37) establishing present ownership of the several parcels and on admissions of non‑possession by the plaintiffs. The RTC also ordered petitioners to pay respondents P100,000.00 as moral damages and P40,000.00 as attorney’s fees, jointly and severally.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On January 30, 2002, the CA in CA‑G.R. CV No. 57088 affirmed the RTC’s factual findings as sufficiently supported by the record but modified the RTC judgment by deleting the award of moral damages. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the Supreme Court, which issued the present Resolution denying the petition and affirming the CA decision with the deletion of moral damages. The Supreme Court Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Sandoval‑Gutierrez; Associate ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court re‑examine and weigh anew the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals in this case?
- Were petitioners entitled to partition of the subject parcels, or did the evidence (including Exhibits 1–37 and admissions) establish prior partition/transfers and respondents' possession sufficient to dismiss the complaint?
- Was the award of moral damages by the RTC to respondents prope...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)