Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALBA v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 202632 2015-07-08	ROBERTO STA. ANA DY v. BONIFACIO A. YU PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
[C]oncealment and misrepresentation in the application that no other persons had any claim or interest in the said land, constitute specific allegations of extrinsic fraud supported by competent proof. Failure and intentional omission of the applicants to disclose the fact of actual physical possession by another person constitutes an allegation of actual fraud. Likewise, it is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which benefit is obtained to the prejudice of a third person.[119]
	GR No. 194014 2012-09-12	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. ALEJANDRO AND MYRNA REBLANDO VELASCO JR., J.
Generally, findings of fact of trial courts are accorded great respect and shall not be disturbed,[24] more so when affirmed by the CA.[25] This rule, however, admits of several exceptions,[26] such as when the findings are manifestly mistaken, unsupported by evidence or the result of a misapprehension of acts, as in this case.
	GR No. 163271 2010-01-15	SPS. PATRICIO AND MYRNA BERNALES v. HEIRS OF JULIAN SAMBAAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Conclusions and findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case.[39] The fact that the CA adopted the findings of fact of the trial court makes the same binding upon this court.[40] In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [41] we held that factual findings of the CA which are supported by substantial evidence are binding, final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. A departure from this rule may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court,[42] or when the same is unsupported by the evidence on record.[43] There is no ground to apply the exception in the instant case, however, because the findings and conclusions of the CA are in full accord with those of the trial court.
	GR No. 168437 2009-01-08	LAURINIO GOMA v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
And this factual determination, as a matter of long and sound appellate practice, deserves great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal, except only for the most convincing reasons,[14] such as when that determination is clearly without evidentiary support on record[15] or when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or overlooked certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[16] This is as it should be since it is not the function of the Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to evaluate and weigh all over again the evidence presented or the premises supportive of the factual holdings of lower courts.[17]
	GR No. 140047 2004-07-13	PHILIPPINE EXPORT v. V.P. EUSEBIO CONSTRUCTION DAVIDE JR., J.
It is a fundamental and settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding or conclusive upon this Court unless they are not supported by the evidence or unless strong and cogent reasons dictate otherwise.[43] The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are normally not reviewable by us under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court except when they are at variance with those of the trial court. [44] The trial court and the Court of Appeals were in unison that the respondent contractor cannot be considered to have defaulted in its obligations because the cause of the delay was not primarily attributable to it.
	GR No. 130562 2001-10-11	BRIGIDA CONCULADA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Next, the determination of whether or not private respondents waived their preferential right to buy Lot 4 calls for a factual determination. Repeatedly, we have said that a review of factual questions is not a function of the Supreme Court, not unless the appellate court's findings are palpably unsupported by the evidence on record or unless the judgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts.[17] We find no such misapprehension nor misappreciation of facts to reverse the determination of the appellate court which has become final.
	GR No. 115508 2000-02-15	ALEJANDRO AGASEN v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals also found petitioners' claim of ownership to be unsubstantiated, in contrast to that of private respondent who presented tax declarations and certification of tax payments in her favor. As pointed out by petitioners, however, the tax declarations in the name of private respondent for the year 1978 were issued only in 1977, and only after she had secured title to the property in her name. Such a belated declaration has been held to be indicative of an absence of a real claim of ownership over the subject land prior to the declaration.[17] On the other hand, the real estate tax payments certified as paid by the Municipal Treasurer refers to the entire mother Lot No. 2192 before it was subdivided or partitioned into five (5) equal lots. Private respondent cannot be said to have paid taxes on the subject property during the period when petitioners claimed that the property had already been sold to them.