This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-02-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Although courts are not ordinarily bound by testimonies of experts, they may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effects (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.[136] | |||||
|
2009-02-18 |
|||||
| The deed of sale executed by Maxima in favor of petitioners was null and void, since Maxima was not the owner of the land she sold to petitioners, and the one-half northern portion of such land was owned by respondents. Being an absolute nullity, the deed is subject to attack anytime, in accordance with Article 1410 of the Civil Code that an action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe. Likewise, we have consistently ruled that when there is a showing of such illegality, the property registered is deemed to be simply held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it is registered, and the former then has the right to sue for the reconveyance of the property.[5] An action for reconveyance based on a void contract is imprescriptible.[6] As long as the land wrongfully registered under the Torrens system is still in the name of the person who caused such registration, an action in personam will lie to compel him to reconvey the property to the real owner.[7] In this case, title to the property is in the name of petitioner Rogelia; thus, the trial court correctly ordered the reconveyance of the subject land to respondents. | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In this case, following Article 173[29] of the Civil Code, on 26 June 1995, or eight and a half years (8 ½) after the purported sale to petitioner, Asuncion filed her Complaint-in-Intervention seeking the nullification thereof, and while her marriage with Troadio was still subsisting. Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court found Asuncion's signature in the deed of sale to have been forged, and consequently, the deed of sale void for lack of marital consent. We find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Findings of fact of lower courts are deemed conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court subject to certain exceptions,[30] none of which are present in this case. Besides, it has long been recognized in our jurisprudence that a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title.[31] | |||||
|
2007-02-21 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Without prejudging the issue as it is the trial court which would ultimately determine the same, if it is established that petitioners' consent was not given to the 1962 Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement and Sale which became the basis for the issuance of the new title over the entire lot in respondent Damiano's name in 1965, the absence of such consent makes the Deed null and void ab initio and subject to attack anytime.[32] It is recognized in our jurisprudence that a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title.[33] Article 1410 of the Civil Code clearly provides that an action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Expert testimony no doubt constitutes evidence worthy of meriting consideration, although not exclusive on questions of a professional character. The courts of justice, however, are not bound to submit their findings necessarily to such testimony; they are free to weigh them, and they can give or refuse to give them any value as proof, or they can even counterbalance such evidence with the other elements of conviction which may have been adduced during the trial. (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly, in Espiritu v. Court of Appeals[32] and Salomon v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[33] this Court held:Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study or observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. (Underscoring supplied.) Thus, while the expert witness' possible bias in favor of the side for whom he or she testifies, and the fact that he or she is a paid witness, may be considered by the trial court, the latter should weigh the same with all the other evidence adduced during trial, as well as with the witness' deportment, actions, ability, and character upon the witness stand. The trial court is consequently given the discretion in weighing all these circumstances in its determination of the expert witness' credibility, as it is in a better position than the appellate courts to observe the demeanor of these witnesses. As there is no evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in such determination, the latter is not reviewable by this Court. | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, courts are not bound by expert testimonies. They may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of an expert should be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case. The problem of the evaluation of expert testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.[10] | |||||
|
2004-08-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Turning now to the effects of the absolute nullity of the deed, it is well-settled that when there is a showing of illegality, the property registered is deemed to be simply held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it is registered, and the former then has the right to sue for the reconveyance of the property. The action for the purpose is also imprescriptible. As long as the land wrongfully registered under the Torrens system is still in the name of the person who caused such registration, an action in personam will lie to compel him to reconvey the property to the real owner.[30] | |||||
|
2003-08-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In actions for reconveyance of property predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of was null and void ab initio, a claim of prescription of action would be unavailing. The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe...[21] Likewise, in the cases of Solomon v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[22] Vda. De Portugal v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[23] Garanciang v. Garanciang,[24] and Lacsamana v. Court of Appeals,[25] the Court ruled that conveyances by virtue of a forged signature or a fictitious deed of sale are void ab initio. The absence of the essential requites of consent and cause or consideration in these cases rendered the contract inexistent and the action to declare their nullity is imprescriptible. | |||||