This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-03-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On appeal under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 73647 which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bauang, La Union, in LRC Case No. 58-MTCBgLU, approving respondent's application for registration of an 8,957-square meter parcel of land located in Brgy. Taberna, Bauang, La Union. | |||||
|
2009-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Both parties concede that this issue is factual. It is a basic rule that factual issues are beyond the province of this Court in a petition for review, for it is not our function to review evidence all over again.[17] Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of law may be raised in this Court in a petition for review on certiorari.[18] The reason is that the Court is not a trier of facts.[19] However, the rule is subject to several exceptions.[20] Under these exceptions, the Court may delve into and resolve factual issues, such as in cases where the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are absurd, contrary to the evidence on record, impossible, capricious or arbitrary, or based on a misappreciation of facts. | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| (A) THE LATE CONSUELO R. JAMERO DIED INTESTATE, LEAVING NO DEBTS. HENCE, THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR IS NOT NECESSARY AS IT WOULD ONLY UNDULY BURDEN OR OTHERWISE EXPOSE THE ESTATE TO BEING WASTED OR SQUANDERED. (B) ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR IS NECESSARY, THE ORDER OF PREFERANCE PRESCRIBED BY THE RULES IN THE APPOINTMENT OF REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. THUS, THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE DESIGNATED THE PETITIONER WHO POSSESSES BENEFICIAL INTERESTS AS A CO-OWNER OF THE ESTATE, RATHER THAN ATTY. ALBERTO Y. BAUTISTA WHO IS ONLY A THIRD PARTY. (C) ASSUMING, FURTHER, THAT THE DESIGNATION OF ATTY. ALBERTO BAUTISTA WHO IS A THIRD PARTY IS PROPER, THE AUTHORITY OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR CANNOT BE EXERCISED IN DEROGATION OF THE RIGHTS OF PETITIONER AS A CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES FORMING PART OF THE ESTATE. [6] Private respondent Ernesto Jamero who was not a party in CA-G.R. SP No. 53020 filed his Comment contending that in the absence of clear, convincing and satisfactory proof that the decision is outrageously wrong, conspicuously mistaken and whimsically arrived at, the judgment of the CA must be regarded as final, citing Macapagal vs. CA, et al.[7] and Bustamante, Jr. vs. NLRC.[8] | |||||