This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-10-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. It is not a function of this Court to analyze and weigh the evidence presented by the parties all over again.[18] This rule, however, has several well-recognized exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the CA and the trial court are conflicting or contradictory.[19] | |||||
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Being purchasers in good faith, the Chuas already acquired valid title to the property. A purchaser in good faith holds an indefeasible title to the property and he is entitled to the protection of the law. [152] x x x (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Notable likewise is that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496 in the name of Capistrano had always been in his possession since he gave Scott only a photocopy thereof pursuant to the latter's authority to look for a buyer of the property. On the other hand, the Jamilars were able to acquire a new owner's duplicate copy thereof by filing an affidavit of loss and a petition for the issuance of another owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496. The minimum requirement of a good faith buyer is that the vendee of the real property should at least see the owner's duplicate copy of the title.[6] A person who deals with registered land through someone who is not the registered owner is expected to look beyond the certificate of title and examine all the factual circumstances thereof in order to determine if the vendor has the capacity to transfer any interest in the land. He has the duty to ascertain the identity of the person with whom he is dealing and the latter's legal authority to convey.[7] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court not being a trier of facts, does not normally embark on a re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court.[27] This rule, however, has several well-recognized exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, the question of whether or not a person is a purchaser in good faith is a factual matter that will not be delved into by this Court, since only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review.[15] The rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, to wit:(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; | |||||