Digest: Bukidnon Doctors’ Hospital, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (463 SCRA 222, 2005)

Questions Open to Review - Questions of Law
Bukidnon Doctors’ Hospital, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (463 SCRA 222, 2005)
G.R. NO. 161882 July 8, 2005
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

Facts:

Herein petitioner loaned a money amounting to P25 M from respondent as a security it mortgaged 6 parcels of land located in Bukidnon. Upon default in the payment of the loan, the said parcels of land were extrajucially foreclosed and put in a public auction and were sold to the repondent bank.

In order to continue its business the petitioner proposed that It would lease the land where its hospital is erected in 3 years for 100,000 a month. Respondent bank agreed to the proposal however increasing the rental to 200,000 a month with the contract subject to a review every 6 months. The parties were able to agree with a monthly rental of 150,000 and that the contract shall take effect in November 2001.

Approximately 1 year and 8 months, respodent ordered the petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days.

The latter refused. MBTC filed for Ex Parte Motion for a Writ of Possession. RTC granted the motion.

 

Issue: Whether or not the controversy is a question of law.

 

Ruling: Yes.  Realizing that the remaining issue was a pure question of law, it withdrew its Notice of Appeal stating that it was appealing the 28 January 2002 Order on both questions of law and fact. Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that prior to the transmittal of the original record, the court may allow withdrawal of the appeal.

Nothing in the Rules prevents a party from filing a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court after seasonably withdrawing the Notice of Appeal as long as it is done within the reglementary period and the issue involved is purely one of law. In this case it was before the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal that the petitioner withdrew its Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals and filed with us a motion for extension of time to file a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. And the petition was filed within the extended period we granted, raising only one question of law.

Nor is there a violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court categorically provides that in all cases where only questions of law are raised, the appeal from a decision or order of the Regional Trial Court shall be to the Supreme Court by Petition for Review on Certiorariin accordance with Rule 45. Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court reads:

SEC. 2. Modes of appeal. –

 

(a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

(b) Petition for review. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by Petition for Review in accordance with Rule 42.

(c) Appeal by certiorari . 'In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by Petition for Review on Certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.

 

Section 1 of Rule 45 provides:

SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. 'A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified Petition for Review on Certiorari . The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.

As earlier stated, the only issue raised in this petition is "whether [or] not the court a quo correctly ruled that respondent, a former mortgagee-buyer, was still entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right as provided under act 3135, as amended, despite a lease agreement between itself and the former mortgagor-seller executed after respondent became the absolute owner of the foreclosed properties."

This question is undoubtedly one of law. The existence of a lease agreement between the parties, which is a question of fact, ceased to be an issue in view of the admission thereof by both the petitioner and the respondent. Thus, with only a question of law raised in this petition, direct resort to this Court is proper.