This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The issue of negligence is factual in nature.[12] And the rule, and the exceptions, is that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive but may be reviewed when: (1) the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory; (2) the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (3) the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (4) there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (7) the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; and (8) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record.[13] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| More specifically, petitioner-spouses' contention, i.e., that the subject property really belonged to Roman's first spouse Flavia as her paraphernal property, cannot be sustained. This position was anchored from the testimony of Josefina[19] that the lot was actually bought by her maternal grandfather and given to her mother Flavia. Josefina's declarations before the RTC do not deserve merit and weight, particularly in light of her statement that she was told so by her elders way back in 1923, when at that time she was only around three (3) years of age.[20] Besides, such a pronouncement was not supported by any proof, save for the lame excuse that the deed of sale showing the said transaction was allegedly lost and destroyed by a typhoon at a time when she was already married, claiming that she was then the custodian of the supposed document. Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself.[21] In other words, it must be natural, reasonable, and probable to warrant belief. The standard as to the truth of human testimony is its conformity to human knowledge, observation, and experience; the courts cannot heed otherwise.[22] Regretfully, petitioner-spouses' allegations do not measure up to the yardstick of verity. | |||||