Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CELSO R. HALILI v. CA

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 173181 2010-03-03	HUTAMA-RSEA v. KCD BUILDERS CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
A petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law. As a rule, findings of fact of a trial judge, when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon the Supreme Court. This rule admits of only a few exceptions, such as when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; when an inference made by the appellate court from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; when there is a misappreciation of facts; when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by the evidence on record.[10] However, not one of the exceptions is present in this case.
	GR No. 158230 2008-07-16	REPUBLIC v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ROXAS CITY CARPIO, J.
Since Lot No. 398 has already been transferred to Filipino citizens, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured.[13] As held in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority:[14]
	GR NO. 159748 2007-07-31	SPS. VIRGILIO AND DIGNA ANASTACIO-CALINA v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES PUNO, C.J.
Second, it is improper for this Court to determine whether there was a compromise agreement entered into by the parties. This Court is not a trier of facts, nor will it disturb the trial court's findings of fact, such findings being, as a rule, binding and conclusive.[22] This doctrine admits of only a few exceptions, such as when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when an interference made by the appellate court from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; when there is a misappreciation of facts; when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence or are contradicted by evidence on record.[23] None of these exceptions are present in the case at bar.
	GR NO. 141856 2005-02-11	PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. SINFOROSO F. MACALINAO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case, are binding on the Supreme Court. Indeed, the review of such findings is not a function that this Court normally undertakes.[5] It should be stressed that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review before this Court. However, this Rule is not absolute; it admits of exceptions, such as (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which if properly considered will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[6]
	GR No. 127227 2001-02-28	PAZ S. LIM FOR HERSELF v. VICTORIA K. CHAN PARDO, J.
We have ruled that the factual findings of the trial court are given weight when supported by substantial evidence[15] and carries more weight when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[16] However, this rule admits of a few exceptions.[17] Among the exceptions are "when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when an inference made by the appellate court from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; when there is a misappreciation of facts; when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence or are contradicted by evidence on record."[18]