Scribd
Upload
627 views2 pages

Heirs of Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr. v. Heirs of Gabino T. Villanoza G.R. No. 218666

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals properly exercised its appellate jurisdiction in reviewing questions of fact in a land dispute case. The Court of Appeals found that "Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr." was a different person than "Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez," which contradicted the lower court's factual finding but was supported by evidence. As the appellate court, the Court of Appeals has the power to review both questions of fact and law, especially when the lower court's factual finding is inconsistent with the evidence or overlooks important facts.

Uploaded by

Won Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
627 views2 pages

Heirs of Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr. v. Heirs of Gabino T. Villanoza G.R. No. 218666

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals properly exercised its appellate jurisdiction in reviewing questions of fact in a land dispute case. The Court of Appeals found that "Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr." was a different person than "Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez," which contradicted the lower court's factual finding but was supported by evidence. As the appellate court, the Court of Appeals has the power to review both questions of fact and law, especially when the lower court's factual finding is inconsistent with the evidence or overlooks important facts.

Uploaded by

Won Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Heirs of Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr. v. Heirs of Gabino T.

Villanoza

G.R. No. 218666, April 26, 2017, 825 SCRA 264

LEONEN, J./Second Division

Facts:

Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez (Sebastian) owned a land measuring "more or less" 2.833
hectares (28,333 square meters) located at Barangay Castellano, San Leonardo, Nueva
Ecija. This land was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. NT-143003 and
was registered on March 16, 1976 to "Leonilo Sebastian . . . married to Valentina
Averia." 
On July 7, 1976, Sebastian mortgaged this property to then ComSavings Bank or Royal
Savings and Loan Association, now GSIS Family Bank, to secure a loan. His loan
matured on June 30, 1978, but the bank did nothing to collect the payment due at that
time.  In 1981, tenant-farmer Gabino T. Villanoza (Villanoza) started tilling Sebastian's
land.  It was only on December 11, 1997, about 19 years after the maturity of Sebastian's
loan, that GSIS Family Bank extrajudicially foreclosed his mortgaged properties
including the land tenanted by Villanoza. A public auction was held, and GSIS Family
Bank emerged as "the highest and only bidder." Sebastian's land title was cancelled and
TCT No. NT-271267 was issued in the name of the new owner, GSIS Family Bank.  On
June 20, 2000, Sebastian filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court to annul the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale. Sebastian argued that an action to foreclose the mortgage
prescribed after 10 years. GSIS Family Bank's right of action accrued on June 30, 1978,
but it only foreclosed the property 19 years later. Thus, its right to foreclose the
property was already barred. 
While the case was pending at the Regional Trial Court, the Department of Agrarian
Reform sent a notice of coverage under Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program to GSIS Family Bank, then landowner of the disputed
property. Neither GSIS Family Bank nor Sebastian exercised any right of retention
within 60 days from this notice of coverage.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals properly exercised its appellate jurisdiction

Ruling:

Yes. The Court of Appeals properly exercised its jurisdiction in finding that "Leonilo P.
Nuñez, Sr." was different from "Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez." Contrary to petitioners'
allegations, the Court of Appeals could not be estopped simply because the issue was
never raised before the Department of Agrarian Reform. In the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals is empowered to have an independent finding of fact
or adopt those set forth in the decision appealed from. This is true especially when the
factual finding on the matter contradicts the evidence on record.

Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Simon Enterprises, Inc. has held that even the Court, which
generally reviews questions of law, may review questions of facts when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts. This Court may likewise do so when there is no
citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based or when the
relevant and undisputed facts have been manifestly overlooked which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion. This gives all the more reason for the
Court of Appeals to review questions of facts and law. In Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals,
Inc., the Court has also held that a matter not raised by the parties may be reviewed if
"necessary for a complete resolution of the case."

You might also like