Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUCIA G. MIRANDA v. ESPERANZA B. BESA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 169970 2009-01-20	PROTACIO VICENTE v. DELIA SOLEDAD AVERA PUNO, C.J.
As the registered owners and actual possessors of the property in question, petitioners have a clear legal right to the property in dispute. Section 51 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 provides that registration is the operative act that conveys or affects registered land as against third persons.[30] Thus, a TCT is the best proof of ownership of land.[31] In the case at bar, it is undisputed that petitioners are the registered owners and actual possessors of the subject property. Moreover, as the registered owners, petitioners have the right to the possession of the property, which is one of the attributes of ownership.[32]
	GR NO. 142641 2006-07-17	PACIFICO B. ARCEO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
These findings (due notice to petitioner and nonpayment of the obligation) were confirmed by the appellate court. This Court has no reason to rule otherwise. Well-settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are not to be disturbed.[11]
	GR NO. 141993 2006-03-17	NARCISA AVILA v. SPS. BENJAMIN BARABAT CORONA, J.
Furthermore, contrary to petitioners' claim, the trial court found that it was respondents who took over the payment of real property taxes after the execution of Exhibit "A." There is no reason to depart from these factual findings because, as a rule, factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Court and generally will not be reviewed on appeal to us.[5] There is no reason for us to deviate from this rule.
	GR No. 143772 2005-11-22	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PRUDENTIAL BANK CORONA, J.
On the matter of actual damages adjudged by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, DBP wants this Court to review the evidence presented during the trial and to reverse the factual findings of the trial court. This Court is, however, not a trier of facts and it is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence anew.[13] The rule is that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and generally will not be reviewed on appeal.[14] While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, none of the established exceptions finds application here.