Del Mundo v. CA (G.R. No. 108522; January 29, 1996)

CASE DIGEST: GERARDO A. DEL MUNDO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. TEODORO P. REGINO, Presiding Judge of Branch 84, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Metro Manila, DIONISIO PASCUAL, JR., Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, and Spouses CARLOS NAVA and ALEJANDRA NAVA, respondents.

(Please help us make a case digest for this piece of jurisprudence. You may leave your contribution in the comment section below or email us at Please include your name so we can properly give credit to you for your work.)


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; NOT THE PROPER LEGAL REMEDY TO CORRECT ERRORS IN JUDGMENTS. - The writ of certiorari is granted when any tribunal acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Errors in judgment are not proper in a petition for certiorari. These are raised in a petition for review.

2. ID.; BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129; JURISDICTION OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP IN EJECTMENT CASES. - The issue of possession can be resolved in an ejectment proceeding without deciding the issue of ownership. A judgment rendered in the summary action of forcible entry or unlawful detainer is conclusive only on the question of possession and not of ownership. When the issue of ownership is indispensable to the resolution of the issue of possession, the Metropolitan Trial Court is empowered to decide it as well. In any case, its decision does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building.

3. ID.; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT; RULE; CASE AT BAR. - The errors raised by petitioner are clearly factual in nature. There is no justification to depart from the well-settled principle laid down in a long line of cases that the findings of fact of the lower courts, the trial court and the Court of Appeals, are, as a general rule, binding and conclusive upon this Court. There is likewise no basis to review the factual conclusions of the Regional Trial Court, particularly since respondent Court of Appeals adopted them as its own and found them to be in order.