"x x x.
First, the petition raises questions of fact which are beyond the coverage of a petition for review oncertiorari. The settled rule is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is not this Court’s function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below, our jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. The resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[12] This is in accordance with Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which reads:
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. – A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, 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 may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency. (Emphasis supplied)
Significantly, Section 5, Rule 45 provides that the failure of the petitioner to comply with the requirements on the contents of the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. While jurisprudence provides settled exceptions to these rules, the instant petition does not fall under any of these exceptions.
On the same ground that petitions under Rule 45 must not involve questions of fact, the petitioners’ prayer for this Court to admit what they claimed to be newly discovered evidence is hereby denied. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and substantiation of factual issues.[13] While the Rules of Court allows the introduction by parties of newly-discovered evidence, as in motions for new trial under Rule 37, these are not to be presented for the first time during an appeal. In addition, the term “newly-discovered evidence” has a specific definition under the law. Under the Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.[14]
The two documents which the petitioners seek to now present are not of this nature. Undeniably, the CENRO Certification and cadastral map annexed to the petition could have been produced and presented by the petitioners during the proceedings before the court a quo. Further to this, the petitioners’ purpose for submitting the said documents is only to prove that the disputed property is a foreshore land that should have been declared owned by the State. Thus, even granting that the documents may be admitted at this stage, the certification and cadastral map fail to support the petitioners’ claim of ownership over the disputed property. On the contrary, these documents only negate their claim of ownership and better right to possess the land because foreshore land is not subject to private ownership, but is part of the public domain. In Republic of the Philippines v. CA,[15] we thus held:
When the sea moved towards the estate and tide invaded it, the invaded property became foreshore land and passed to the realm of the public domain. In fact, the Court in Government vs. Cabangis annulled the registration of land subject of cadastral proceedings when the parcel subsequently became foreshore land. In another case, the Court voided the registration decree of a trial court and held that said court had no jurisdiction to award foreshore land to any private person or entity. The subject land in this case, being foreshore land, should therefore be returned to the public domain.[16] (Citations omitted)
We note that not even herein petitioners, but the Republic of the Philippines
All told, this Court finds no justification to depart from the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts. The petitioners failed to present any cogent reason that would warrant a reversal of the decision and resolution assailed in this petition.
x x x."
