For consideration of this Court is a petition for review of the Decision, dated January 14, 1988, of the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the Decision, dated November 17, 1983, of the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norte, Branch 19, in Civil Case No. 192-XIX.

The antecedent facts are undisputed: On February 20, 1974, Manuel de los Santos applied for, and was granted a loan in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) by herein petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB, for brevity), thru its Laoag Branch. To secure said loan, Mr. de los Santos mortgaged a parcel of agricultural land consisting of Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Square Meters (56,290 sq. m.) located at Bangui, Ilocos Norte. Despite repeated demands for payment of his loan account when the same became due and demandable, Mr. de los Santos failed and refused to pay his outstanding obligation to the bank which amounted to Seven Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen Pesos and Eight Centavos (P7,515.08) with interest at the rate of 19% plus 2% service charge.

On July 17, 1982, herein private respondent Consuelo Yu (hereinafter referred to as respondent Yu) filed before the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norte a complaint against Manuel de los Santos and the PNB for ownership, annulment of mortgage contract and damages, alleging, among others, that she is the absolute owner of the parcel of land in question; that Manuel de los Santos, through fraud and misrepresentation, executed an affidavit (Exhibit C) on December 13, 1973 stating therein that although the land in question is declared in the name of his "Auntie" (referring to herein private respondent Yu), it was actually owned by his deceased father, Gregorio Chua; that on the basis of said affidavit, Tax Declaration No. 7591 in the name of private respondent was cancelled and another one, Tax Declaration No. 400551-a was issued by the Provincial Assessor in the name of Manuel de los Santos; that thereafter, Manuel de los Santos mortgaged said land to PNB; and, that PNB with bad faith, approved the mortgage in favor of said Manuel de los Santos.

The evidence for private respondent as found by the trial court is quoted as follows:

Petitioner's submission is summarized by the trial court in this wise:

On November 17, 1983, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

Petitioner PNB appealed the aforequoted decision to the Court of Appeals. On January 14, 1988, the appellate court rendered the assailed decision affirming in toto the decision of the court a quo.4 [Rollo, p 73.] Hence, the instant petition for review wherein petitioner PNB alleges that:

This case was archived by the Court in a Resolution, dated September 3, 1990, upon petitioner’s motion, to be reopened and revived upon appearance of private respondent or her counsel or heirs, successors-in-interest or legal representatives.6 [Id., at 101.]

On March 11, 1998, this Court resolved to require the parties to move in the premises.7 [Id., at 104.]

Petitioner PNB filed its Manifestation,8 [Id., at 110.] dated August 26, 1998, in compliance with the aforesaid resolution. It stated that after conducting an investigation to find the address of Consuelo Yu for the proper service of the petition, it obtained her address at 153 Kaliraya, Quezon City, at which place it caused personal service of a copy of the petition.

On January 8, 1999, private respondent Consuelo Yu filed her Opposition to Petition,9 [Id., at 134.] alleging therein that the instant petition actually raises questions of fact.

We go now to the merits of the case.

Petitioner PNB alleged that the testimony of witness Dr. Leticia G. Garvida engendered doubt because even as she testified that she collected the owner's share of the produce of the subject land; and, that a certain Lazaro Baloaloa was a tenant of said land, she failed to state that Baloaloa had delivered to her the owner's share.

Secondly, petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring respondent as the true and lawful owner of the subject land when the fact of inheritance by respondent's husband Eleuterio Chua of the subject land from his mother, Sy O, was not proven in the trial court.

Thirdly, petitioner contended that the appellate court should have considered it a mortgagee in good faith since it not only made a careful scrutiny of the Tax Declaration No. 400551 offered as collateral for the land by Manuel De los Santos, but also made an "on the spot" investigation and inspection of the land itself and found that De los Santos was in actual and peaceful possession of the subject land.

Finally, petitioner averred that it should not have been made liable for attorney's fees and costs because it was never a party to the fraud allegedly committed by De los Santos.

Petitioner's arguments are untenable.

Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals, when supported by substantial evidence on record, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.10 [Atillo III vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 596 (1997).] It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.11 [Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 612 (1992).]

A perusal of the records will show that the conclusions reached by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court are ably supported by evidence.

Anent the first and second issues, the trial court declared, thus:

At this juncture, it is worthy to note that we are here dealing with unregistered land.13 [Id., at 71-73.] Thus, in the absence of a certificate of title, the trial court had to rely on the other pieces of evidence submitted by both parties to prove their respective claims of ownership.

Anent the documentary evidence presented by the defendant therein Manuel de los Santos, the trial court found these to be inconsistent and unworthy of belief.

In his affidavit, Manuel de los Santos declared that the land in question was owned by his deceased father, Gregorio Chua, but that it was declared for taxation purposes in the name of his "Auntie," herein private respondent Consuelo Yu.

However, in the "Deed of Confirmation of Ownership" purportedly executed by Mr. de los Santos’ brothers, namely, Carlos de los Santos and Constante de los Santos, the latter claimed that Consuelo Yu is their mother who died in 1970, and that the subject property is Manuel’s share of her estate.

Clearly, the two documents are contradictory to each other. Interestingly, the trial court found both claims to be untruthful, for Consuelo Yu is neither the mother nor the aunt of Manuel de los Santos and his brothers Carlos and Constante. Their real mother is one Cresencia de los Santos, a laundrywoman, who even testified for the plaintiff thus: that she was the mother of Manuel de los Santos; and, that she did not even know of the existence of the land in suit.14 [TSN, April 26, 1983, pp. 38-39.]

On the other hand, a perusal of the records will show that the testimony of Dr. Leticia Go Garvida is both consistent, and convincing.

She testified that she is a physician employed as Medical Officer III, Rural Health Unit; that she is 50 years of age, a widow, and a resident of Bangui, Ilocos Norte; that she is the niece of herein private respondent Consuelo Yu, the latter being the wife of her mother’s brother, Eleuterio Chua; that she is familiar with the land in question and knows it to be the property of Consuelo Yu; that she is, in fact, the administrator of said land, and has been since 1952; that as the administrator, she collects the owner’s share of the produce of the land from the tenants, namely, Evaristo Agustines and Lazaro Baloaloa; that she knows Manuel de los Santos because he is her neighbor; and, that she does not know of any relationship between said Manuel de los Santos and her aunt, Consuelo Yu.15 [TSN, April 11, 1983, pp. 1-8.]

With regard to the Tax Declaration submitted by Manuel de los Santos, the trial court found this to be dubious and unreliable. Said court noted that on its face, said document "appears to be newly issued to him (De los Santos) in the year 1974, and that the name of the previous owner, Consuelo Yu, was clearly typewritten thereon."

It is clear that the trial court, and correctly so, chose to give credence to the testimony of Dr. Leticia Go Garvida as against the documents submitted to support De los Santos' claim of ownership over the subject property.

It is doctrinally settled that the evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses by the trial court is reviewed on appeal with the highest respect, because it had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth.16 [People vs. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26 (1997).] In the appreciation of the evidence, the appellate court accords due deference to the trial court's views on who should be given credence, since the latter is in a better position to observe their demeanor as well as their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.17 [People vs. Topaguen, 269 SCRA 601 (1997).]

With regard to petitioner's claim of good faith, we quote with approval the trial court's findings on the issue:

Anent the last issue, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court's finding of liability of petitioner for attorney's fees and costs. The appellate court held thus:

Finally, it is worthy to note that this case has dragged on for seventeen (17) years, more or less, from the time of institution of the action in June 18, 1982 to the present. It is high time the issues raised be resolved with finality. Public policy and sound practice demand that at the risk of occasional errors, judgment of courts should become final at some definite date.20 [Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 231 SCRA 88 (1994).] The Court frowns upon frivolous appeals and any dilatory maneuver calculated to defeat or frustrate the ends of justice and fair play.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby resolves to DENY the instant petition for review.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.