G.R. No. 74833 January 21, 1991THOMAS C. CHEESMAN, petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPEATE CO!RT an" ESTEITA PADIA, respondents.This appeal concerns the attempt by an American citizen (petitioner Thomas Cheesman) to annul for lack ofconsent onhispart thesale by his Filipino ife (Criselda) ofa residentiallot andbuildin! to "stelita #adilla, also a Filipino.Thomas Cheesman and Criselda #. Cheesman ere married on $ecember %, &'() but have beenseparated since February &*,&'+&. &,n -une %, &'(%, a .$eed of /ale and Transfer of #ossessory 0i!hts. as e1ecuted by ArmandoAltares conveyin! a parcelof unre!istered land and the house thereon (at 2o. ( 2eptune /treet,3ordon 4ei!hts, ,lon!apo City) in favor of .Criselda #. Cheesman, of le!ala!e, Filipino citizen,married to Thomas Cheesman, and residin! at 5ot 2o. &, 6lk. +, Filtration 0oad, /ta. 0ita, ,lon!apoCity . . .. 7 Thomas Cheesman, althou!haare ofthe deed, did not ob8ect tothetransfer bein!made only to his ife.9Thereafterand a!ain ith the knoled!e of Thomas Cheesman and also ithout any protest byhimta1 declarations for the property purchased ere issued in the name only of CriseldaCheesmanandCriseldaassumede1clusivemana!ement andadministrationof saidproperty,leasin! it to tenants. %,n -uly &, &'+&, Criselda Cheesman sold the property to "stelita :. #adilla, ithout the knoled!eor consent of Thomas Cheesman. * The deed described Criselda as bein!. . . . of le!al a!e, marriedto an American citizen,. . ..;Thirty days later, or on -uly 9&, &'+&, Thomas Cheesman brou!ht suit in the Court of First uently setout in a pre?trial ,rder dated ,ctober 77, &'+&, ' as follos@&. 6othpartiesreco!nizethee1istenceof the$eedof /aleover theresidential houselocated at 2o. ( 3ranada /t., 3ordon 4ei!hts, ,lon!apo City, hich as ac>uired fromArmando Altares on -une %, &'(% and sold by defendant Criselda Cheesman to "stelita#adilla on -uly &7, &'+&= and7. That thetransactionre!ardin!thetransfer of their propertytook placedurin!thee1istenceof their marria!easthecoupleeremarriedon$ecember %, &'()andthe>uestioned property as ac>uired sometime on -une %,&'(%.The action resulted in a 8ud!ment dated -une 7%, &'+7, &) declarin! void ab initio the sale e1ecutedby Criselda Cheesman in favor of "stelita :. #adilla, and orderin! the delivery of the property toThomas Cheesman as administrator of the con8u!al partnership property, and the payment to him of#*,))).)) as attorneyAs fees and e1penses of liti!ation.&&The 8ud!ment as hoever set aside as re!ards "stelita #adilla on a petition for relief filed by thelatter, !rounded on .fraud, mistake andBor e1cusable ne!li!ence. hich had seriously impaired herri!ht to present her case ade>uately. &7 .After the petition for relief from 8ud!ment as !iven duecourse,. accordin! to petitioner, .a ne 8ud!e presided over the case.. &9"stelita#adilla filedasupplemental pleadin!on $ecember7),&'+7asher onanser tothecomplaint, andamotionfor summary8ud!ment on:ay&(, &'+9. Althou!hthereasinitialopposition by Thomas Cheesman to the motion, the parties ultimately a!reed on the rendition by thecourt of a summary 8ud!ment after enterin! into a stipulation of facts, at the hearin! of the motion on-une 7&, &'+9, the stipulation bein! of the folloin! tenor@ &%(&) that the property in >uestion as bou!ht durin! the e1istence of the marria!e beteenthe plaintiff and the defendant Criselda #. Cheesman=(7) that the property bou!ht durin! themarria!eas re!istered in thename ofCriseldaCheesman and that the $eed of /ale and Transfer of #ossessory 0i!hts e1ecuted by theformer oner?vendor Armando Altares in favor of Criselda Cheesman made no mention ofthe plaintiff=(9) that the property, sub8ect of the proceedin!s, as sold by defendant Criselda Cheesmanin favor of the other defendant "stelita :. #adilla, ithout the ritten consent of the plaintiff.,bviously upon the theory that no !enuine issue e1isted any lon!er and there as hence no needof a trial, the parties havin! in fact submitted, as also stipulated, their respective memoranda eachprayin! for a favorable verdict, the Trial Court &* rendered a ./ummary -ud!ment. dated Au!ust 9,&'+7 declarin! .the sale e1ecuted by . . . Criselda Cheesman in favor of . . . "stelita #adilla to bevalid,. dismissin! Thomas CheesmanAs complaint and orderin! him .to immediately turn over thepossession of the house and lot sub8ect of . . . (the) case to . . . "stelita #adilla . . .. &;The Trial Court found that &) the evidence on record satisfactorily overcame the disputable presumption in Article &;)of theCivil Codethat all propertyof themarria!ebelon!stothecon8u!al partnership.unless it be proved that it pertains e1clusively to the husband or to the ife.and that theimmovable in >uestion as in truth CriseldaAs paraphernal property=7) that moreover, said le!alpresumption in Article &;) could not apply .inasmuch as thehusband?plaintiff is an American citizen and therefore dis>ualified under the Constitution toac>uire and on real properties= and9) that the e1ercise by Criselda of e1clusive acts of dominion ith the knoled!e of herhusband.hadled. . . "stelita#adillatobelievethat thepropertieserethee1clusiveproperties of Criselda Cheesman and on the faith of such a belief she bou!ht the propertiesfrom her and for value,. and therefore, Thomas Cheesman as, under Article &%(9 of theCivil Code, estopped to impu!n the transfer to "stelita #adilla.Thomas Cheesman appealed to the uestion pursuant to Article&;) of the Civil Code= (9) of disre!ardin! the 8ud!ment of -une 7%, &'+7 hich, not havin! been setaside as a!ainst Criselda Cheesman, continued to be bindin! on her= and (%) of makin! findin!s offact not supportedbyevidence.All of thesecontentionserefoundtobeithout merit bytheAppellate Tribunal hich, on -anuary (, &'+;, promul!ated a decision (erroneously denominated,.0eport.)&( affirmin!the./ummary-ud!ment complainedof,..havin!foundnoreversibleerror.therein.,nce more, Thomas Cheesman availed of the remedy of appeal, this time to this Court. 4ere, hear!ues that it as reversible error for the uestion is con8u!al in accordance ith Article&;) had been satisfactorily overcome by "stelita #adilla= &+7) to rule that "stelita #adilla as a purchaser of said property in !ood faith, it appearin!@a) that thedeedbyhichthepropertyasconveyedtoCriseldaCheesmandescribed her as .married to Thomas C. Cheesman,. as ell as the deed by hichthepropertyaslater conveyedto"stelita#adillabyCriseldaCheesmanalsodescribed her as .married to an American citizen,. and both said descriptions hadthus .placed "stelita on knoled!e of the con8u!al nature of the property=. andb) that furthermore, "stelitahadadmittedtostatin!inthedeedbyhichsheac>uired the property a price much loer than that actually paid .in order to avoidpayment of more obli!ation to the !overnment=.&'9) to decline to declare that the evidence did not arrant the !rant of "stelita #adillaAs petition forrelief on the !round of .fraud, mistake andBor e1cusable ne!li!ence=. 7)%) to hold that Thomas Cheesman had aived his ob8ection to "stelitaAs petition for relief by failin!to appeal from the order !rantin! the same=*) to accord to "stelita #adilla a relief other than that she had specifically prayed for in her petitionfor relief, ie., .the restoration of the purchase price hich "stelita alle!edly paid to Criselda=. 7& and;) to fail to declare that Thomas CheesmanAs citizenship is not a bar to his action to recover the lotand house for the con8u!al partnership.77/uchconclusionsasthat (&) fraud, mistakeor e1cusablene!li!encee1istedinthepremises8ustifyin! relief to "stelita #adilla under 0ule 9+ of the 0ules of Court, or (7) that Criselda Cheesmanhad used money she had brou!ht into her marria!e to Thomas Cheesman to purchase the lot andhouse in >uestion, or (9) that "stelita #adilla believed in !ood faith that Criselda Cheesman as thee1clusive oner of the property that she ("stelita) intended to and did in fact buyderived from theevidence adduced by the parties, the facts set out in the pleadin!s or otherise appearin! on recordare conclusions or findin!s of fact. As distin!uished from a >uestion of lahich e1ists .henthe doubt or difference arises as to hat the la is on a certain state of facts. .there is a >uestionof fact hen the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alle!ed facts=.79or henthe .>uery necessarily invites calibration of the hole evidence considerin! mainly the credibility ofitnesses,e1istence and relevancy ofspecific surroundin!circumstances,their relation= to eachother and to the hole and the probabilities of the situation.. 7%2o, it is a1iomatic that only >uestions of la, distinctly set forth, may be raised in a petition for therevie oncertiorari ofadecision oftheCourtofAppealspresentedto thisCourt.7* Aseveryoneknos or ou!ht to kno, the appellate 8urisdiction of this Court is limited to reviein! errors of la,acceptin!asconclusivethefactual findin!sof theloercourt uponitsonassessment of theevidence. 7; Thecreationof theCourt ofAppealsaspreciselyintendedtotakeaayfromthe/upreme Court the ork of e1aminin! the evidence, and confine its task to the determination of>uestionshichdonot call forthereadin!andstudyof transcriptscontainin!thetestimonyofitnesses.7( The rule of conclusiveness of the factual findin!s or conclusions of the Court of Appealsis, to be sure, sub8ect to certain e1ceptions, 7+ none of hich hoever obtains in the case at bar.uestion. Conse>uently, thesedeterminations of fact ill not be here disturbed, this Court havin! been cited to no reason for doin!so.These considerations dispose of the first three (9) points that petitioner Cheesman seeks to make inhis appeal.1wphi1They also make unnecessary an e1tended discussion of the other issues raisedby him. As to them, it should suffice to restate certain fundamental propositions.An order of a Court of First uently had, cannotbe construed as a aiver of his ob8ection to the petition for relief so as to preclude his raisin! thesame >uestion on appeal from the 8ud!ment on the merits of the main case. /uch a party need notrepeat hisob8ectionstothepetitionfor relief, or performanyact thereafter (e.!., takeformale1ception) inorder topreservehisri!ht to>uestionthesameeventually, onappeal, it bein!sufficient for this purpose that he has made of record .the action hich he desires the court to takeor his ob8ection to the action of the court and his !rounds therefor.. 7'A!ain, the prayer in a petition for relief from 8ud!ment under 0ule 9+ is not necessarily the sameprayer in the petitionerAs complaint, anser or other basic pleadin!. This should be obvious. ">uallyobvious is that once a petition for relief is !ranted and the 8ud!ment sub8ect thereof set aside, andfurther proceedin!s are thereafter had, the Court in its 8ud!ment on the merits may properly !rantthe relief sou!ht in the petitionerAs basic pleadin!s, althou!h different from that stated in his petitionfor relief.Finally, the fundamental la prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land. /ection &%, Article Cuired a parcel of land lot 2o. '% of -olo tonsite ith an area of 9,;;* s>uare meters as evidenced by ,ri!inal Certificate of Title 2o. &(' ($ ?&**) in the name of -ose 3odinez= that their mother died sometime in &'9+ leavin! the plaintiffs as their sole survivin! heirs= that on 2ovember 7(, &'%&, ithout the knoled!e of the plaintiffs, the said -ose 3odinez, for valuable consideration, sold the aforesaid parcel of land to the defendant Fon! #ak 5uen, a Chinese citizen, hich transaction is contrary to la and in violation of the Civil Code because the latter bein! an alien ho is inhibited by la to purchase real property= that Transfer Certificate Title 2o. ++% as then issued by the 0e!ister of $eeds to the said defendant, hichis null and void ab initio since the transaction constituted a non?e1istent contract= that on -anuary &&, &';9, said defendant Fon! #ak 5uen e1ecuted a poer of attorney in favor of his co?defendant Fan #un :in!, also an alien, ho conveyed and sold the above described parcel of land to co?defendant Trinidad /. 2avata, ho is aare of and ith full knoled!e that Fon! #ak 5uen is a Chinese citizen as ell as Fan #un :in!, ho under the la are prohibited and dis>ualified to ac>uire real property in this 8urisdiction= that defendant Fon! #ak 5uen has not ac>uired any title or interest in said parcel of land as the purported contract of sale e1ecuted by -ose 3odinez alone as contrary to la and considered non? e1istent, so much so that the alle!ed attorney?in?fact, defendant Fan #un :in! had not conveyed any titleor interest over said property and defendant 2avata had not ac>uired anythin! from said !rantor and as a conse>uence Transfer Certificate of Title 2o. &977, hich as issued by the 0e!ister of $eeds in favor of the latter is null and void ab initio,? that since one?half of the said property is con8u!al property inherited by the plaintiffs from their mother, -ose 3odinez could ?not have le!ally conveyed the entire property= that notithstandin! repeated demands on said defendant to surrender to plaintiffs the said property she refused and still refuses to do so to the !reat dama!e and pre8udice of the plaintiffs= and that they ere constrained to en!a!e the services of counsel in the sum of #7,))).)).1%wph&1$'t The plaintiffs thus pray that they be ad8ud!ed as the oners of the parcel of land in >uestion and that Transfer Certificate of Title 0T?') (T?++%) issued in the name of defendant Fon! #ak 5uen be declared null and void ab initio= and that the poer of attorney issued in the name of Fan #un :in!, as ell as TransferCertificate of Title 2o. A5977 issued in the name of defendant 2avata be likeise declared null and void, ith costs a!ainst defendants.,n Au!ust &+, &';;, the defendant 0e!ister of $eeds filed an anser claimin! that he as not yet the re!ister of deeds then= that it as only the ministerial duty of his office to issue the title in favor of the defendant 2avata once he as determined the re!isterability of the documents presented to his office.,n ,ctober 7), &';;, the defendant 2avata filed her anser ith the affirmative defenses and counterclaim alle!in! amon! others that the complaint does not state a cause of action since it appears from the alle!ation that the property is re!istered in the name of -ose 3odinez so that as his sole property he may dispose of the same= that the cause of action has been barred by the statute of limitations as the alle!ed document of sale e1ecuted by -ose 3odinez on 2ovember 7(, &'%&, conveyed the property to defendant Fon! #ak 5uen as a result of hich a title as issued to said defendant= that under Article &&%% (&) of the Civil Code, an action basedupon a ritten contract must be brou!ht ithin &) years from the time the ri!ht of action accrues= that the ri!ht of action accrued on 2ovember 7(, &'%& but the complaint as filed only on /eptember 9), &';;, beyond the &) year period provided for by la= that the torrens title in the name of defendant 2avata is indefeasible ho ac>uired the property from defendant Fon! #ak 5uen ho had been in possession of the property since &'%& and thereafter defendant 2avata had possessed the same for the last 7* years includin! the possession of Fon! #ak 5uen= that the complaint is intended to harass the defendant as a civic leader and respectable member of the community as a result of hich she suffered moral dama!es of #&)),))).)), #7,*)).)) for attorneyAs fees and #*)).)) e1penses of liti!ation, hence, said defendant prays that the complaint be dismissed and that her counterclaim be !ranted, ith costs a!ainst the plaintiffs. ,n 2ovember 7%, &';(, the plaintiffs filed an anser to the affirmative defenses and counter?claim. As the defendants Fon! #ak 5uen and Fan #un :in!are residin! outside the #hilippines, the trial court upon motion issued an order of April &(, &';(, for the service of summons on said defendants by publication. 2o anser has been filed by said defendants.,n $ecember 7, &'; (, the court issued an order as follos@6oth parties havin! a!reed to the su!!estion of the Court that they submit their supplemental pleadin!s to support both motion and opposition and after submittal of the same the said motion to dismiss hich is an affirmative defense alle!ed in the complaint is deemed submitted. Failure of both parties or either party to submit their supplemental pleadin!s on or about $ecember ', the Court ill resolve the case.,n 2ovember 7', &';+, the trial court issued an order missin! the complaint ithout pronouncement as to costs. (0ecord on Appeal, pp. 9&? 9(). A motion for reconsideration of this order as filed by the plaintiffs on $ecember &7, &';F, hich as denied by the trial court in an order of -uly &&, &';', (0ec. on Appeal, pp. 9+, %9, %*, %(). The plaintiffs no interpose this appeal ith the folloin! assi!nments of errors@ualified to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain in the #hilippines.The meanin! of the above provision as fully discussed in (riven)o v$ *e+ister of ,eeds of "anila ((' #hil. %;&) hich also detailed the evolution of the provision in the public land las, Act 2o. 7+(% and Commonealth Act 2o. &%&. The (riven)o rulin! that .under the Constitution aliens may not ac>uire private or a!ricultural lands, includin! residential lands. is a declaration of an imperative constitutional policy. Conse>uently, prescription may never be invoked to defend that hich the Constitution prohibits. 4oever, e see no necessity from the facts of this case to pass upon the nature of the contract of sale e1ecuted by -ose 3odinez and Fon! #ak 5uen hether void ab initio, ille!al per se or merely pro?e1hibited.11