This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| On June 17, 1997, the CTA denied the said petition for review. Citing this Court's ruling in Vda. de Oñate v. Court of Appeals,[23] the CTA opined that the aforementioned pieces of evidence introduced by the BIR were admissible in evidence. The CTA ratiocinated:Although the above-mentioned documents were not formally offered as evidence for respondent, considering that respondent has been declared to have waived the presentation thereof during the hearing on March 20, 1996, still they could be considered as evidence for respondent since they were properly identified during the presentation of respondent's witness, whose testimony was duly recorded as part of the records of this case. Besides, the documents marked as respondent's exhibits formed part of the BIR records of the case.[24] | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| HOLDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE "SALE" TO RAMOS WAS UNUSUALLY INADEQUATE RESULTING IN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE.[20] The Petition mainly raises the questions of (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the rule enunciated in the case of Vda. De Oñate v. Court of Appeals[21] pertaining to the admission and consideration of evidence not formally offered, and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's ruling that the contract between petitioner and Elpidio was actually one of equitable mortgage and not a pacto de retro sale. | |||||