Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TEOFILA ILAGAN-MENDOZA and ROSARIO ILAGAN URCIA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 192150 2014-10-01	FEDERICO SABAY v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
In the absence of any indication that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked facts or circumstances that would result in a different ruling in this case, we will not disturb their factual findings.[27]
	GR No. 161042 2009-08-24	REPUBLIC v. AGRIPINA DELA RAGA CARPIO, J.
The factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Court. The exceptions to this rule are (1) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (2) when the findings are grounded on speculations; (3) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the factual findings are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties; (7) when the Court of Appeals overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) when the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[14] The Republic did not show that the present case falls under any of the exceptions.
	GR No. 165907 2009-07-27	SPS. DOMINADOR R. NARVAEZ AND LILIA W. NARVAEZ v. SPS. ROSE OGAS ALCISO AND ANTONIO ALCISO CARPIO, J.
The exceptions to the rule that the factual findings of the trial court are binding on the Court are (1) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (2) when the findings are grounded on speculations; (3) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the factual findings are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties; (7) when the Court of Appeals overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) when the facts set forth by the petitioners are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[22] The Spouses Narvaez did not show that the instant case falls under any of the exceptions.
	GR No. 163868 2009-06-04	ROMUALDO PAGSIBIGAN v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Court. The exceptions to this rule are (1) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (2) when the findings are grounded on speculations; (3) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the factual findings are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties; (7) when the Court of Appeals overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) when the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[15] After a careful review of the records, the Court finds that none of these circumstances is present.
	GR No. 160918 2009-04-16	CONCEPCION B. ALCANTARA v. YCONG CARPIO, J.
The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Court. The exceptions to this rule are (1) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (2) when the findings are grounded on speculations; (3) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the factual findings are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties; (7) when the Court of Appeals overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) when the facts set forth by the petitioners are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[17] After a careful review of the records, the Court finds that none of these circumstances is present.