Pagsibigan vs. People, G.R. No.
163868, 04 June 2009
Elizabeth Hinal (Hinal) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) entered into a deed of
conditional sale over a piece of property. Under the deed, GSIS sold the property to Hinal payable in 25
years. Eleazar M. Cabasal got interested on this property. He approached Romualdo A. Pagsibigan, a
manager of the Rural Bank of Guiguinto, Bulacan, and offered for sale Hinal’s property for ₱215,000 plus
assumption of the outstanding obligation with GSIS. Cabasal agreed to buy the property. He made the
initial payment of ₱215,000, and occupied the property.
In 1992, Cabasal received from GSIS a notice directing Hinal to settle her outstanding obligation of
₱535,000. Alarmed, Cabasal referred the matter to Pagsibigan. They then asked Hinal to sign a deed of
sale and transfer of rights over the property in favor of Cabasal. Hinal refused, reasoning that she did not
(1) sell the property, (2) authorize Pagsibigan to do so and (3) receive the ₱215,000. Pagsibigan assured
Cabasal that he would settle the problem.
In 1999, Cabasal received another notice from GSIS directing Hinal to settle her outstanding obligation of
₱752,157.10, otherwise the deed of conditional sale would be cancelled. Upon the advice of an his
lawyer, Atty. Reyes, he made an initial payment of ₱50,000 to GSIS to forestall the cancellation of the
deed of conditional sale.
Atty. Reyes demanded Pagsibigan to return Cabasal’s ₱215,000. Because the he failed to return the
money, Atty. Reyes initiated a criminal case of estafa against him. In his defense, Pagsibigan claims that
he did not receive ₱215,000 from Cabasal
The RTC did not find him found him guilty of the case but ordered him to pay Cabasal ₱215,000 civil
liability, ₱20,000 attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. He appealed the matter to the CA of which
they affirmed the RTC’s decision. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in making Pagsibigan civilly liable to Cabasal.
Ruling:
The petition is partly meritorious. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover
only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable. A question of law exists when the doubt
centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. There is a question of law if the issue raised is
capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the value of the evidence. A question of fact exists
when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Once the issue invites a review of the
evidence, the question posed is one of fact.
Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or
rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and
convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact.
Whether Pagsibigan received ₱215,000 from Cabasal is a question of fact. It can only be resolved after
reviewing the value of the evidence. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court which, as a
rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the
petition and therein distinctly set forth. The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Court. There are exceptions to this rule, of which did not find
present.
After a careful review of the records, the Court finds that none of these circumstances is present.
Petition granted.
