mpermissible considering that the Court is not a trier of facts.

[33]

There are exceptional instances in which the Court has held itself competent to make its own
appreciation of the facts, and not be concluded by the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts,
namely: (1) when the factual findings of the CA and those of the trial court were contradictory; (2)
when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (3) when the
inference made by the CA from its findings of fact was manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (4)
when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when the CA, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and such findings were contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee; (6) when the judgment of the CA was premised on a misapprehension of facts;
(7) when the CA failed to notice certain relevant facts that, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion; (8) when the findings of facts were themselves conflicting; (9) when the findings
of fact were conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they were based; and (10)
when the findings of fact of the CA were premised on the absence of evidence but such findings were
contradicted by the evidence on record. [34] None of the aforementioned exceptions obtains in this case.

Accordingly, the Court, just as the lower courts have been bound, shall proceed upon the assumption
that the property in litis and Lot No. 18563 were one and the same realty.

2.
CA correctly concluded that Aznar Brothers
owned Lot No. 18563; and that the Spouses Ybañez
were not buyers in good faith

In its assailed judgment, the CA concluded that the RTC erred in holding in favor of the Spouses
Ybañez, observing as follows:

The trial court however erred when it held:

Nevertheless, from the totality of the evidence adduced by the parties, there is no preponderant evidence
that the defendants had prior knowledge of the previous sale of subject property to the plaintiff when
they bought the same from Adriano D. Ybañez on June 21, 1978. And there is neither any showing that
defendant had prior knowledge of such sale when they applied for and was issued Original Certificate of
Title No. 2150 on August 14, 1979. Thus, defendants can very well be considered as purchasers to the
protection of the provisions of P.D. 1529. While plaintiff has shown to have acquired or was issued tax
declaration No. GR-07-049-00694 and had paid taxes on the property, said tax declaration and realty tax
payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership (Ferrer-Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, 150 SCRA 393).
It cannot prevail over Original Certificate of Title No. 2150 in the name of the defendants, as a torrens
title concludes all controversies over ownership of land covered by a final decree of registration (PNB
vs. Court of Appeals, 153 SCRA 435).

The Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit F) in favor of plaintiff-appellant Aznar was registered under Act
3344, as amended on March 23, 1964 with the Register of Deeds of Cebu City. The registration of said
deed gave constructive notice to the whole world including defendant-appellees of the existence of said
deed of conveyance. (Gerona v. Guzman, 11 SCRA 153) Defendant-appellees cannot, therefore, claim
to be buyers in good faith of the land in question. Resultantly, they merely stepped into the shoes of their
sellers vis a vis said land. Since their sellers were not owners of the property in question, there was
nothing that they could have sold to defendant-appellees.[35]

We sustain the CA’s conclusion that the Spouses Ybañez were guilty of bad faith, and that they
acquired Lot No. 18563 from sellers who were not the owners. Accordingly, we resolve the second
error raised herein in favor of Aznar Brothers.

The records and evidence fully substantiated the CA’s conclusion. The Spouses Ybañez acquired Lot
No. 18563 through the deed of sale executed on June 21, 1978 by Adriano in favor of Jose R. Ybañez.
Together with his siblings Fabian Ybañez, Carmen Ybañez-Tagimacruz, Fe Ybañez-Alison, and
Dulcisima Ybañez-Tagimacruz, Adriano had supposedly inherited Lot No. 18563 from Casimiro, their
father, who had died intestate on July 3, 1968. Holding themselves as the heirs and successors-in-
interest of Casimiro, they had then executed on August 29, 1977 the Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs
with an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person and Deed of Absolute Sale, whereby
they divided and adjudicated Lot No. 18563 among themselves, and then sold the entire lot to Adriano.