This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Both parties, however, agree that the issue of whether the spouses Dy were already in default when Orix Metro instituted foreclosure proceedings is factual in nature. There is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[31] It requires a re-evaluation of the evidence on record and is generally not under the cognizance of this Court. In petitions for review on certiorari, the Court only passes upon questions of law in light of the general rule that findings of fact of the appellate court are binding on this Court, especially when these merely affirm the factual findings of the trial court.[32] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A party cannot escape the operation of res judicata by simply varying the form of the action or by adopting a different mode of presenting its case.[24] That one case is for revocation of sale and the other for accion reivindicatoria is of no significance. The application of res judicata cannot be subverted merely by a difference in labelling. In fact, res judicata has been applied to cases far more diverse than the hair-splitting distinctions raised by petitioners concerning the instant case. For instance, a case for rendering an accounting of funds was held to preclude a subsequent case for the partition of the same funds and their fruits; a judgment in an action for recovery of damages for property lost was an effective bar to any other action between the same parties for the recovery of the same property or its value.[25] All the more should res judicata be applied in this instance. | |||||
|
2005-08-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The findings of the courts below that (1) Gregorio donated to petitioner the subject lot; (2) the Deed of Absolute Sale is void; and (3) Gregorio's only property is the said lot - are all factual in nature which are not within the domain of this Court for it is not a trier of facts.[4] Basic is it that findings of fact by the trial court, especially when affirmed on appeal, as in this case, are conclusive and binding upon this Court. [5] | |||||
|
2005-07-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we emphasize that factual questions are not reviewable by the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. There is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[24] | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The petitioners advance the theory that petitioner Francisca Jamito, a legal heir of Faustina Adalid, and the respondent Register of Deeds of Bais City were not parties to the earlier case, therefore, there was no identity of parties between the first case and the second case. We do not agree. The principle of res judicata may not be evaded by the mere expedient of including an additional party to the first and second action.[20] Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation.[21] There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case.[22] As fittingly held by the Court of Appeals:The appellants' pleadings both here and in the lower court admit that they are the descendants, and hence, the representatives of their predecessors-in-interest who were the defendants in Civil Case No. 4049. As such, the decision in the earlier case is binding on them and they are substantially the same persons who were parties in the earlier case. The addition of the Register of Deeds as a party in this case is of no moment as he is a mere nominal party.[23] | |||||