G.R. No. 168692. December 13, 2010.* FRANCISCO TAYCO, substituted by LUCRESIA TAYCO and NOEL TAYCO, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF CONCEPCION TAYCO-FLORES, namely: LUCELI F. DIAZ, RONELE F. BESA, MONELE FLORES, PERLA FLORES, RUPERTO FLORES, WENCESLAO FLORES, PURISIMA FLORES, and FELIPE FLORES, respondents.

 Remedial Law; Appeals; Findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons.—The above findings of fact of the trial court must be accorded respect. It is a hornbook doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. It is not a function of this Court to analyze and weigh evidence by the parties all over again.

To reiterate, in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of review, this Court is not a trier of facts, and unless there are excepting circumstances, it does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.26 The CA, therefore, erred in disregarding the factual findings of the trial court without providing any substantial evidence to support its own findings.

For this Court’s consideration is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Decision

The denomination given by the parties in their contract is not conclusive of the nature of the contents. In this particular case, the trial court, based on its appreciation of the pieces of evidence presented, rightfully concluded that the intent of the signatories was contrary to the questioned document’s content and denomination. 

Upon the death of the spouses Fortunato Tayco and Diega Regalado, their children, petitioner Francisco Tayco, Concepcion Tayco-Flores and Consolacion Tayco inherited the following parcels of land: 

Sometime in September of 1972, petitioner Francisco Tayco and his sister Consolacion Tayco executed a document called Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Diega Regalado with Confirmation of Sale of Shares, 5 transferring their shares on the abovementioned properties to their sister Concepcion Tayco-Flores. The said document was notarized and, on March 16, 1991, Concepcion Tayco-Flores and Consolacion Tayco executed the Confirmation of Quitclaim of Shares in Three (3) Parcels of Land.

Consolacion Tayco died on December 25, 1996 and Concepcion Tayco-Flores died on January 14, 1997. 

Thereafter, petitioner Francisco Tayco filed a case for nullity of documents and partition with damages with the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan claiming that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Diega Regalado with Confirmation of Sale of Shares and the Confirmation of Quitclaim of Shares in three (3) Parcels of Land are null and void; thus, he is still entitled to his original shares in the parcels of land.

Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement was executed at that time, because Concepcion Tayco-Flores was in need of money and wanted the properties to be mortgaged in a bank.

Ther sisters Concepcion and Consolacion executed another document entitled Confirmation of Quitclaim of Shares in three (3) Parcels of Land in order to have the tax declarations and certificates of title covering those three parcels of land transferred in the name of Concepcion. 

RTC: In favor  of Francisco Tayco.. In ruling that the assailed documents were null and void, the RTC ratiocinated that the extrajudicial settlement is a simulated document to make it appear that Concepcion Tayco-Flores was the owner of the properties, so that it would be easy for her to use the same as a collateral for a prospective loan and as evidence disclosed that the intended loan with any financial institution did not materialize, hence, the document had no more effect. Consequently, according to the trial court, since the first document was simulated and had no force and effect, the second document had no more purpose and basis.

CA: Reversed RTC. In reversing the trial court’s findings, the CA reasoned out that the genuineness and due execution of the Extrajudicial Settlement was not disputed and was duly signed by the parties and notarized.

Motion for Reconsideration - Denied by CA

The petitioner raised this lone issue: “CAN THE DEED OF EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED DIEGA REGALADO WITH CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF SHARES DIVEST CO-HEIR AND CO-OWNER FRANCISCO TAYCO OF HIS SHARES IN THE THREE (3) PARCELS OF LAND IN QUESTION?” 11 

Under question is the validity of the document that contains the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the deceased, Diega Regalado.

The trial court ruled that it is null and void based on its assessment of the facts, while the CA adjudged it valid based on its examination of the said document. Under Section 1, Rule 45, providing for appeals by certiorari before the Supreme Court, it is clearly enunciated that only questions of law may be set forth.12

Questions of fact may not be raised unless the case falls under any of the following exceptions:13

(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 fact 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 those of 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; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. 

 (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; 

This case clearly falls under one of the exceptions and after a careful review of the facts of the case, this Court finds the petition meritorious. Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court provides: “If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action for partition. x x x.

of P1,000.00, a consideration of P50.00 only plus filial love would still be greatly disproportionate. Certainly, the 1/3 share of plaintiff exceeds P1,000.00. The filial love between siblings may affect the discrepancy only if the difference between the market value over the selling price is slight. (ibid.). It would appear, therefore, that Exhibit A is merely a simulated document to make it appear that Concepcion Tayco-Flores is the owner of the properties s

The Confirmation of Quitclaim of Shares in Three Parcels of Land came into fruition merely to confirm the existence of the first document. It was executed on March 16, 1991, when petitioner Francisco Tayco was still alive. Nevertheless, the said document was signed only by Consolacion and Concepcion