TAPAYAN vs. MARTINEZ

Sps. Marcelian Tapayan and Alice Tapayan Vs. Ponceda M. Martinez

G.R. No. 207786

January 30, 2017

Facts

The parties herein are relatives by affinity. Petitioner Alice Tapayan is the sister of Clark Martinez's (Clark) wife. Clark is Respondent's son.

Respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated along Pingol Street, Ozamiz City, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-1223 (Pingol Property).4 Based on the records, it appears that two (2) mortgages were constituted over this property - the first in favor of Philippine National Bank (PNB Mortgage ), and the second in favor of Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP Mortgage).

The records further show  that Respondent agreed to constitute the DBP Mortgage upon Clark's request,7 and that, in order to release the Pingol Property from the PNB Mortgage, the Petitioners and Respondent agreed to utilize a portion of the proceeds of the DBP Loan to settle the remaining balance of Respondent's PNB Loan, then amounting to Sixty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Pesos and 55/100 (₱65,320.55).

Subsequently, the parties herein executed a Deed of Undertaking dated August 29, 1998 (Deed of Undertaking) in reference to the DBP Mortgage. The DBP Loan was not paid when it fell due

On September 14, 1999, Respondent filed a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages (Complaint) against Petitioners before the RTC. Respondent averred that Petitioners used the proceeds of the DBP Loan exclusively for their own purposes, 13and that since Petitioners failed to pay the DBP Loan, she and her children were constrained to pay DBP the sum of One Million One Hundred Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Pesos and 10/100 (₱1,180,200.10) to save the Pingol Property from foreclosure.After trial, the RTC rendered a decision dated September 28, 2009 in favor of Respondent.  CA rendered the assailed Decision denying the Petitioners' appeal.

Issue

The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in affirming the R TC Decision directing Petitioners to execute a mortgage over the Carangan Property in favor of Respondent.

Ruling

As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45,36 subject only to recognized exceptions, namely:

(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.

The Court holds that no misapprehension of facts was committed by both the RTC and the CA so as to justify deviation from their findings, except only as to the RTC's finding regarding the amount that Petitioners are bound to reimburse to Respondent.