This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-12-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Fule v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court held that Article 1358 of the Civil Code, which requires the embodiment of certain contracts in a public instrument, is only for convenience, and registration of the instrument only adversely affects third parties. Formal requirements are, therefore, for the benefit of third parties.[25] Non-compliance therewith does not adversely affect the validity of the contract nor the contractual rights and obligations of the parties thereunder.[26] | |||||
|
2008-02-11 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| With its years of banking experience, resources and manpower, respondent bank is presumed to be familiar with the implications of entering into the deed of assignment, whose terms are categorical and left nothing for interpretation. The alleged non-inclusion in the deed of certain units of heavy equipment due to inadvertence, plain oversight or mistake, is tantamount to inexcusable manifest negligence, which should not invalidate the juridical tie that was created.[10] Respondent is presumed to have maintained a high level of meticulousness in its dealings with petitioners. The business of a bank is affected with public interest; thus, it makes a sworn profession of diligence and meticulousness in giving irreproachable service.[11] | |||||
|
2004-06-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[33] The movants and twenty-five others, who alleged to be the co-heirs of the original plaintiffs, filed a complaint, on April 27, 1998 against CSLA, BPI, Leonora Macias and the Sheriff, docketed as Civil Case No. 12212 for quieting of title, reconveyance and damages. In addition, they filed, on July 22, 1998, a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals[34] assailing the lower court's Orders dated January 8, 1998, and April 27, 1998, alleging that the trial court issued the same with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners alleged, inter alia, in their petition that:(A) IN REVERSING ITS OWN ORDER DATED DECEMBER 11, 1997, WITHOUT THE PROPER MOTION TO THAT EFFECT, IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, TANTAMOUNT TO A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION; | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Succinct is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence submitted by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally binding and conclusive on this Court.[34] The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law,[35] not of fact, unless it is shown, inter alia, that: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; and (6) the Court of Appeals, in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admission of both parties.[36] | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It was likewise error for the Court of Appeals to rule that the transactions were "dented by the failure to register/annotate the same with the Register of Deeds" and that due to such failure, the documents "did not automatically bind the subject property." First, one of the subject documents, the Deed of Absolute Sale, was in fact registered. Second, as elucidated in Fule vs. Court of Appeals[16] | |||||