This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-02-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that only questions of law may be raised, subject to exceptional circumstances[14] which are not present in this case. Hence, factual findings of the trial court, especially if affirmed by the CA, are binding on us.[15] In this case, both the RTC and the CA found that the signatures of Poblete and her deceased husband in the Deed dated 11 August 2000 were forged by Maniego. In addition, the evidence is preponderant that Maniego did not pay the consideration for the sale. Since the issue on the genuineness of the Deed dated 11 August 2000 is essentially a question of fact, we are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh the evidence again.[16] | |||||
|
2013-02-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The issue on the nullity of Maniego's title had already been foreclosed when this Court denied Maniego's petition for review in the Resolution dated 13 July 2011, which became final and executory on 19 January 2012.[22] It is settled that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.[23] This is without prejudice, however, to the right of Maniego to recover from Poblete what he paid to Kapantay for the account of Poblete, otherwise there will be unjust enrichment by Poblete. | |||||
|
2011-12-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Thus, jurisprudence is replete with the pronouncement that where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the special civil action of certiorari will not be entertained - remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive.[23] The proper remedy of the party aggrieved by a decision of the CA is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not identical with a petition under Rule 65. Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific ground therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that to be taken under Rule 45.[24] One of the requisites of certiorari is that there is no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal was available, as in this case, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.[25] | |||||