View full case

HEIRS OF LOURDES S. SABANPAN v. ALBERTO C. COMORPOSA

FACTS:

The heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan, Adolfo Saez, and Cristina Saez Gutierrez filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with damages against the respondents before the Municipal Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Davao del Sur. The complaint alleged that Marcos Saez, the predecessor-in-interest, was the lawful and actual possessor of Lot No. 845, Land 275 located at Darong, Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur. In 1960, Marcos Saez died, leaving all his heirs, his children, and grandchildren. Francisco Comorposa, a family friend, approached Adolfo Saez and asked for permission to occupy a portion of Marcos Saez's land after he was terminated from his job. Adolfo allowed him to do so, and Francisco occupied the land without paying rent. Francisco eventually left for Hawaii, and the respondents succeeded him in the possession of the land. In May 1998, a formal demand was made for the respondents to vacate the land, but they refused and claimed that they were the rightful possessors and owners. The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Regional Trial Court reversed the decision, citing the respondents' possession since 1960. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion and err in sustaining the ruling of the Regional Trial Court giving credence to the Order dated 2 April 1998 issued by the regional executive director?

  2. Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion and err in sustaining the Regional Trial Court's ruling giving weight to the CENR Officer's Certification, which only bears the facsimile of the alleged signature of a certain Jose F. Tagorda and, [worse], it is a new matter raised for the first time on appeal?

  3. Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion and err in holding that the land subject matter of this case has been acquired by means of adverse possession and prescription?

  4. Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion, and err in declaring that, "neither is there error on the part of the Regional Trial Court, when it did not give importance to the affidavits by Gloria Leano Saez, Noel [Oboza], and Paulina Paran for allegedly being self-serving?"

RULING:

  1. The Court resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Review. The Court found no reversible error in the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the Court held that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and cannot be reviewed without sufficient reason.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The admissibility of evidence should be distinguished from its probative value.

  • Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and cannot be reviewed without sufficient reason.