04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly that petitioners are now barred by laches from attacking the trial court's jurisdiction over the case. Citing Aragon v. Court of Appeals,[58] respondent argues that the jurisdictional issue should have been raised at the appellate level at the very least so as to avail of the doctrine that the ground lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal.[59] Respondent maintains that there is no room for the application of litis pendentia because the issues in the application for ancestral land claim are different from the issue in a reivindicatory action. The issue before the NCIP is whether the Government, as grantor, will recognize the ancestral land claim of respondent over a public alienable land; while the issue in the reivindicatory case before the trial court is ownership, possession, and right to recover the real property.[60] Given that the elements of lis pendens are absent in case at bar, the allegation of forum-shopping is also bereft of merit. Any judgment to be rendered by the NCIP will not amount to res judicata in the instant case.[61] Issues The petitioners present the following issues for our consideration: 1. Whether the appellate court disregarded material facts and circumstances in affirming the trial court's decision; 2. Whether petitioners have acquired the subject property by prescription; 3. Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the case in light of the effectivity of RA 8371 or the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 at the time that the complaint was instituted; 4. If the trial court retains jurisdiction, whether the ancestral land claim pending before the NCIP should take precedence over the reivindicatory action.[62] Our Ruling Whether the appellate court disregarded material facts and circumstances in affirming the trial court's decision Both the trial and the appellate courts ruled that respondent has proven her claims of ownership and possession with a preponderance of evidence. Petitioners now argue that the two courts erred in their appreciation of the evidence. They ask the Court to review the evidence of both parties, despite the CA's finding that the trial court committed no error in appreciating the evidence presented during trial. Hence, petitioners seek a review of questions of fact, which is beyond the province of a Rule 45 petition. A question of fact exists if the uncertainty centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[63] "Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact."[64] Since it raises essentially questions of fact, this assignment of error must be elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54595 8/17