G.R. No. 111324. July 5, 1996. * ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. ERNESTO REYES and LORNA REYES, respondents.

  From the foregoing p r ovisio n s , t h e follo wing p r i n ciple s m ay b e fo r m ula t e d: decisions of the Regional Trial Court may be elevated directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment, including cases arising out of the same occurrence and in all other cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved. When the Constitution states that cases involving questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law should be appealed to the Court of Appeals, it merely restates in another way the principle that if only questions of law are raised, these cases should be elevated to the Supreme Court.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. 

? Does the appeal embrace purely questions of law? Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over an appeal from the Regional Trial Court raising only questions of law?

The case at bar springs from a lease agreement executed by petitioner-lessor, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, and private respondent-lessees, spouses Ernesto and Lorna Reyes on August 1, 1985 over a parcel of land located in Intramuros, Manila

The lease contract provided for a ten-year lease, renewable for  

4.50 per square meter on the first and second years, increasing up to P6.50 per square meter on the ninth and tenth years. Private respondent lessees were also given the right of preemption, with first priority to purchase the property if the owner, herein petitioner, offered it for sale.

Intending to have a fire wall constructed hey discovered that the adjacent owner’s concrete fence abutted on and encroached upon 30.96 square meters of the leased property. P

The spouses Reyes claim that despite repeated follow-up, petitioner has failed to take any action on their demand. Consequently, they decided to withhold rental payments as “lever-age” against petitioner and to force the latter to make corrections or adjustments in the area of subject land

Private respondent spouses filed an action for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. 1 The correction or adjust- ment of the encroached portion of the property constituted their first cause of action. For their second cause of action, the spouses Reyes prayed that petitioner be compelled to sell the leased premises to them at P1,600.00 per square meter, claiming that there was already a contract of sale between the parties.

Request for correction in the encroachment problem, but not with the second cause of action to compel petitioner to sell the property to the spouses Reyes.

The case at bar is not one where multiple appeals can be taken or are necessary. Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, 1 5 in actions for recovery of property with accounting, 1 6 in actions for partition of property with accounting, 1 7 in the special civil actions of eminent domain 1 8 and foreclosure of mortgage. 1 9 The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final. 

From the foregoing, it is clear that the Court of Appeals does not exercise jurisdiction over appeals from the Regional Trial Court which raise purely questions of law. Appeals of this nature should be elevated to this Court. Notwithstanding the confirmation of this legal rule, still, the instant petition cannot be granted because the appeal brought before the Court of Appeals by private respondent spouses does not involve questions or errors of law alone, there being factual issues to be resolved. Petitioner has correctly defined what is a “question of law,” thus: there is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter. 3 1 The question that begs answer is

Upon a careful analysis of the issues raised by private respondent in its appeal to respondent court, the Court finds that they are not purely questions of law. Specifically, when private respondent questioned the conclusion of the trial court that there was no meeting of the minds between lessor and lessee regarding the sale of the leased property, private respondent raised a factual issue. Similarly, the issue of whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale necessitates an inquiry into the facts and evidence on record. Likewise, the question regarding the propriety of granting judgment on the pleadings on the matter of rental arrears demands a scrutiny of the facts of the case. The appeal elevated by private respondents, therefore, was properly cognizable by respondent court. There being no reversible error in the decision under review, the instant petition is denied for lack of merit. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals dated May 20, 1993 and July 7, 1993, respectively, in CA G.R. CV No. 29905 entitled “Spouses Ernesto Reyes and Lorna Reyes v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila” are AFFIRMED.