Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No.
126881 October 3, 2000HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE, petitioners, vs.COURT
OF APPEAS !"# $ENGUET UM$ER COMPAN%, re&re'e"te# b( )t'
Pre')#e"t TAN ENG A%,respondents.*E EON, +R., J.,In this petition
for review on certiorari, petitioners pra for the reversal of the
Decision! dated "arch !#, !$$% of the for&er 'ifth Division( of
the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. CV No. ,-$#-, the dispositive
portion of which states./0E 'ORE+OIN+ CONSIDERED, the appealed
decision is hereb set aside, and the co&plaint
dis&issed./he facts are.'ollowin1 the death of /an En1 2ee on
Septe&ber !#, !$3,, "atilde )bubo, the co&&on*law
spouse of the decedent, 4oined b their children /eresita, Nena,
Clarita, Carlos, Cora5on and Elpidio,collectivel 6nown as herein
petitioners 0EIRS O' /)N EN+ 2EE, filed suit a1ainst the decedent7s
brother /)N EN+ 8)9 on 'ebruar !$, !$$:. /he co&plaint,#
doc6eted as Civil Case No. !$3#*R in the Re1ional /rial Court of
;a1uio Cit was for accountin1, liSE. F)A /0ERE =)S NO 'IR"
)CCO>N/B F;A /0ERE =)S NO 'IR" 8E//ER0E)DS S>;"I//ED )S
EVIDENCEB FCA /0ERE =)S NO CER/I'IC)/E O' P)R/NERS0IPB FDA /0ERE
=)S NO )+REE"EN/ )S /O PRO'I/S )ND 8OSSESB )ND FEA /0ERE =)S NO
/I"E 'IGED 'OR /0E D>R)/ION O' /0E P)R/NERS0IP FP)+E !#,
DECISIONA.II/0E 0ONOR);8E CO>R/ O' )PPE)8S ERRED IN RE89IN+
SO8E89 ON /0E SE8'*SERVIN+ /ES/I"ON9 O' RESPONDEN/ /)N EN+ 8)9 /0)/
;EN+>E/ 8>";ER =)S) SO8E PROPRIE/ORS0IP )ND /0)/ /)N EN+ 2EE
=)S ON89 )N E"P8O9EE /0EREO'.III/0E 0ONOR);8E CO>R/ O' )PPE)8S
ERRED IN 0O8DIN+ /0)/ /0E 'O88O=IN+ ')C/S =0IC0 =ERE D>89
S>PPOR/ED ;9 EVIDENCE O' ;O/0 P)R/IES DO NO/ S>PPOR/ /0E
EGIS/ENCE O' ) P)R/NERS0IP E>S/ ;EC)>SE /0ERE =)S NO )R/IC8ES
O' P)R/NERS0IP D>89 RECORDED ;E'ORE /0E SEC>RI/IES )ND
EGC0)N+E CO""ISSION.a. /0)/ /0E ')"I8IES O' /)N EN+ 2EE )ND /)N EN+
8)9 =ERE )88 8IVIN+ )/ /0E ;EN+>E/ 8>";ER CO"PO>NDBb. /0)/
;O/0 /)N EN+ 8)9 )ND /)N EN+ 2EE =ERE CO"")NDIN+ /0E E"P8O9EES O'
;EN+>E/ 8>";ERBc. /0)/ ;O/0 /)N EN+ 2EE )ND /)N EN+ 8)9 =ERE
S>PERVISIN+ /0E E"P8O9EES /0EREINBd. /0)/ /)N EN+ 2EE )ND /)N
EN+ 8)9 =ERE /0E ONES DE/ER"ININ+ /0E PRICES O' S/OC2S /O ;E SO8D
/O /0E P>;8ICB )NDe. /0)/ /)N EN+ 8)9 )ND /)N EN+ 2EE =ERE /0E
ONES ")2IN+ ORDERS /O /0E S>PP8IERS FP)+E !3, DECISIONA.IV/0E
0ONOR);8E CO>R/ O' )PPE)8S ERRED IN 0O8DIN+ /0)/ /0ERE =)S NO
P)R/NERS0IP E>S/ ;EC)>SE /0E C0I8DREN O' /0E 8)/E /)N EN+
2EE. E8PIDIO /)N )ND VERONIC) C0OI, /O+E/0ER =I/0 /0EIR =I/NESS
;E)/RIH /)NDOC, )D"I//ED /0)/ /0E9 DO NO/ 2NO= =0EN /0E
ES/);8IS0"EN/ 2NO=N IN ;)+>IO CI/9 )S ;EN+>E/ 8>";ER =)S
S/)R/ED )S ) P)R/NERS0IP FP)+E !%*!-,DECISIONA.V/0E 0ONOR);8E
CO>R/ O' )PPE)8S ERRED IN 0O8DIN+ /0)/ /0ERE =)S NO P)R/NERS0IP
;E/=EEN /0E 8)/E /)N EN+ 2EE )ND 0IS ;RO/0ER /)N EN+ 8)9 ;EC)>SE
/0E PRESEN/ C)PI/)8 OR )SSE/S O' ;EN+>E/ 8>";ER IS DE'INI/E89
"ORE /0)N P#,:::.:: )ND )S S>C0 /0E EGEC>/ION O' ) P>;8IC
INS/R>"EN/ CRE)/IN+ ) P)R/NERS0IP S0O>8D 0)VE ;EEN ")DE )ND
NO S>C0 P>;8IC INS/R>"EN/ ES/);8IS0ED ;9 /0E )PPE88EES
FP)+E !-, DECISIONA.)s a pre&ise, we reiterate the oft*repeated
rule that findin1s of facts of the Court of )ppeals will not be
disturbed on appeal if such are supported b the evidence.!: Our
4urisdiction, it &ust be e&phasi5ed, does not include
review of factual issues. /hus.Filing of petition with Supreme
Court. I ) part desirin1 to appeal b certiorari fro& a
4ud1&ent or final order or resolution of the Court of )ppeals,
the Sandi1anbaan, the Re1ional /rial Court or other courts whenever
authori5ed b law, &a file with the Supre&e Court a verified
petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only
questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.!!
Je&phasis suppliedK)d&itted eDceptions have been
reco1ni5ed, thou1h, and when present, &a co&pel us to
anal5e the evidentiar basis on which the lower court rendered
4ud1&ent. Review of factual issues is therefore warranted.F!A
when the factual findin1s of the Court of )ppeals and the trial
court are contradictorBF(A when the findin1s are 1rounded entirel
on speculation, sur&ises, or con4ecturesBF#A when the inference
&ade b the Court of )ppeals fro& its findin1s of fact is
&anifestl &ista6en, absurd, or i&possibleBF,A when
there is 1rave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of factsBF?A
when the appellate court, in &a6in1 its findin1s, 1oes beond
the issues of the case, and such findin1s are contrar to the
ad&issions of both appellant and appelleeBF%A when the
4ud1&ent of the Court of )ppeals is pre&ised on a
&isapprehension of factsBF-A when the Court of )ppeals fails to
notice certain relevant facts which, if properl considered, will
4ustif a different conclusionBF3A when the findin1s of fact are
the&selves conflictin1BF$A when the findin1s of fact are
conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which the
are basedB andF!:A when the findin1s of fact of the Court of
)ppeals are pre&ised on the absence of evidence but such
findin1s are contradicted b the evidence on record.!(In reversin1
the trial court, the Court of )ppeals ruled, to wit.=e note that
the Court a quo over eDtended the issue because while the
plaintiffs &entionedonl the eDistence of a partnership, the
Court in turn went beond that b 4ustifin1 the eDistence of a 4oint
venture.=hen &ention is &ade of a 4oint venture, it would
presuppose parit of standin1 between theparties, endoubtedl, the
best evidence would have been the contract of partnership itself,
or the articles of partnership but there is none. /he alle1ed
partnership, thou1h, was never for&all or1ani5ed. In addition,
petitioners point out that the New Civil Code was not et in effect
when the partnership was alle1edl for&ed so&eti&e in
!$,?, althou1h the contrar &a well be ar1ued that nothin1
prevented the parties fro& co&plin1 with the provisions of
the New Civil Code when it too6 effect on )u1ust #:, !$?:. ;ut all
that is in the past. /he net effect, however, is that we are as6ed
to deter&ine whether a partnership eDisted based purel on
circu&stantial evidence. ) review of the record persuades us
that the Court of )ppeals correctl reversed the decision of the
trial court. /he evidence presented b petitioners falls short of
the
