Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTATE OF SALVADOR SERRA SERRA v. HEIRS OF PRIMITIVO HERNAEZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 182382-83 2010-02-24	JAIME S. DOMDOM v. THIRD CARPIO MORALES, J.
Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari, its purpose being to grant an opportunity for the court a quo to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by a re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.[9]
	GR No. 174290 2009-01-20	ST. MARY OF WOODS SCHOOL v. OFFICE OF REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At the outset, it is significant to note that petitioners filed the instant Petition without filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed Resolution. A Motion for Reconsideration of the order or resolution is a condition precedent for the filing of a Petition for Certiorari challenging the issuance of the same.[46]
	GR No. 180884 2008-06-27	EMERLINDA S. TALENTO v. REMIGIO M. ESCALADA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
We note that no motion for reconsideration of the November 5, 2007 order of the trial court was filed prior to the filing of the instant petition. The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non condition for the filing of a petition for certiorari. The purpose is to grant the public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. Petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration deprived the trial court of the opportunity to rectify an error unwittingly committed or to vindicate itself of an act unfairly imputed. Besides, a motion for reconsideration under the present circumstances is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy to the adverse judgment of the trial court.[19]
	GR No. 172585 2008-06-26	CRISTITA BUSTON-ARENDAIN v. ANTONIA GIL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
That the patent applications of Miguel and Antonia Gil over the disputed lots were approved and that their certificates of title thereto were issued five years ahead of respondents are questions of fact already settled by both the RTC and the Court of Appeals. It is axiomatic that factual findings of trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive and will not be disturbed on appeal. This Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to examine and determine the weight of evidence supporting the assailed decision. Moreover, well-rooted is the prevailing jurisprudence that only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.[33]
	GR No. 158086 2008-02-14	ASJ CORPORATION and ANTONIO SAN JUAN v. SPS. EFREN QUISUMBING, J.
The first set is factual. Petitioners seek to establish a set of facts contrary to the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts. However, as well established in our jurisprudence, only errors of law are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45.[17] The trial court, having had the opportunity to personally observe and analyze the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, is in a better position to pass judgment on their credibility.[18] More importantly, factual findings of the trial court, when amply supported by evidence on record and affirmed by the appellate court, are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal.[19] While there are exceptional circumstances[20] when these findings may be set aside, none of them is present in this case.
	GR NO. 157911 2006-09-19	SPS. MANUEL A. AGUILAR AND YOLANDA C. AGUILAR v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions has acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. ... (Emphasis supplied) The plain and adequate remedy referred to in the rule is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision or order. The purpose for this requirement is to grant an opportunity for the court or agency to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case[53] without the intervention of a higher court.[54] Thus, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to the institution of a special civil action for certiorari.
	GR NO. 169241 2006-05-02	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. PENDATUN G. LAJA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.[14] The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions such as where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo had no jurisdiction; where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.[15]