698 Phil. 725
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
WHEREAS, the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART is to construct the New Gayaman Bridge, Binmaley, Pangasinan and such construction affects and passes through a portion of the hereunto described property under Tax Declaration No. 573 still in the name of the late Maximo Diaz who is the predecessor-in-interest of the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART [Crispin D. Ramos];
WHEREAS, the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART and FLORA D. RAMOS-REYES, GOMERCINDO D. RAMOS and JOSE ADVITO D. RAMOS are the compulsory heirs of the late Matea D. Ramos, the latter, together with the Late Maximo Diaz, being the only compulsory heirs of the late Mariano Diaz;
WHEREAS, the heirs of the Late Matea Diaz-Ramos and the heirs of the Late Maximo Diaz are the co-owners of the parcel of land hereunto described property, but the latter’s share was alienated, conveyed and ceded to Eduardo Concepcion by the heirs of the late Maximo Diaz;
WHEREAS, only the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART voluntarily and spontaneously agrees and assents to alienate, convey and cede such a portion from their share of inheritance in the estate of the Late Mariano Diaz as transferred to the Late Matea D. Ramos which such said portion to be affected by the construction of the New Concrete Gayaman Bridge shall be deducted from his inheritance share on the said one-half portion of the estate of the Late Mariano Diaz as hereunto described;
WHEREAS, the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART, being a co-owner of that property hereunto described covered and embodied under Tax declaration No. 573 as declared for taxation purposes consents to cede and convey for consideration a portion from his share in inheritance in the estate of the Late Matea Diaz Ramos affected thereby by way of this Deed of Absolute Sale to the herein PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, such portion being more particularly described and bounded on the North, by the National Road and the property of Marcelo Senting, on the East, by the river; on the South, by the river; and on the West, by the property of Isidro Menera and Inocencio Cerezo, containing an area of One Thousand One Hundred Forty Square Meters (1,140 sq.m.)[.][3] (Emphasis supplied)
x x x x
It is worthy to mention that until now the property is still owned in common by the heirs, therefore, all should participate or share in the proceeds of the payment.
For equity and justice, a Deed of Partition should be submitted/demanded in order to determine the Degree of Participation for every heir.
In view of the foregoing, no release/payment should be made until such time that the issue is settled.[6]
WHEREFORE, premises well-considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:SO ORDERED.[12]
- ordering the Land Bank of the Philippines, Dagupan City Extension Office in Caranglaan District, through its authorized officer(s) to allow the plaintiff to withdraw his deposit with interest from Saving’s Account No. 2641-0235-50 with aforesaid bank;
- ordering the Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the plaintiff litigation expenses in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) pesos and attorney’s fees in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) pesos;
- dismissing the third party complaint of Land Bank of the Philippines against the third party defendant Department of Public Works and Highways.
First Assignment of Error
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE TO WITHDRAW HIS DEPOSIT WITH INTEREST FROM SAVINGS ACCOUNT NO. 2641-0235-50.Second Assignment of Error
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DEFENDANTS/THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS TO PAY THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE LITIGATION EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF P10,000.00 AND ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF P3,000.00.Third Assignment of Error
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE … DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE (DPWH).[14]
It is clear from the arguments of the Bank that it is assailing the correctness of the conclusion of the court a quo that it is not an agent of DPWH with respect to the amount deposited in the savings account of Crispin and that its act of withholding the release of said amount to Crispin was not valid. It has been held that when there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law. x x x.
Worthy of note that during the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to have the case resolved by judgment on the pleadings, there being only legal issues involved. Thus, the court a quo did not make any findings of fact nor did it evaluate the parties’ respective evidence, as none was presented, nor pass upon the truth or falsity of the parties’ allegations. What the court a quo did was simply to apply the law as to the facts borne out by the allegations in the pleadings, and whatever conclusions it arrived at evidently involved questions of law. Consequently, a review of the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings rendered by the court a quo would not involve an evaluation of the probative value of any evidence, as none was presented, but would be limited to the inquiry of whether the law was properly applied given the facts of the case. Therefore, what would inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of law, and not questions of fact, which are not proper in an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, but should be raised by way of a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45, of the Rules of Court.[15]
(1) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, appeal may be made to the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal where the appellant raises questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law;
(2) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction where the appellant raises only questions of law, the appeal must be taken to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
(3) All appeals from judgments rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, regardless of whether the appellant raises questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law, shall be brought to the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review under Rule 42.