Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PROCOPIO VILLANUEVA v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 165427 2011-03-21	BETTY B. LACBAYAN v. BAYANI S. SAMOY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This settles the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Betty B. Lacbayan against respondent Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. assailing the September 14, 2004 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 67596. The CA had affirmed the February 10, 2000 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 224, of Quezon City declaring respondent as the sole owner of the properties involved in this suit and awarding to him P100,000.00 as attorney's fees.
	GR No. 188456 2010-02-10	H. HARRY L. ROQUE v. COMELEC VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, as a matter of sound established practice, points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not raised in the original proceedings cannot be brought out on review. Basic considerations of fair play impel this rule. The imperatives of orderly, if not speedy, justice frown on a piecemeal presentation of evidence[25] and on the practice of parties of going to trial haphazardly.[26]
	GR No. 185063 2009-07-23	SPS. LITA DE LEON AND FELIX RIO TARROSA v. ANITA B. DE LEON VELASCO JR., J.
Thus, the question of whether petitioners were able to adduce proof to overthrow the presumption is a factual issue best addressed by the trial court. As a matter of long and sound practice, factual determinations of the trial courts,[18] especially when confirmed by the appellate court, are accorded great weight by the Court and, as rule, will not be disturbed on appeal, except for the most compelling reasons.[19] Petitioners have not, as they really cannot, rebut the presumptive conjugal nature of the lot in question. In this regard, the Court notes and quotes with approval the following excerpts from the trial court's disposition: The defendants, however, did not adduce any proof that the property in question was acquired solely by the efforts of [Bonifacio]. The established jurisprudence on the matter leads this Court to the conclusion that the property involved in this dispute is indeed the conjugal property of the deceased [Bonifacio] De Leon.
	GR No. 179848 2008-11-27	NESTOR A. JACOT v. ROGEN T. DAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule.[26] Courts have neither the time nor the resources to accommodate parties who chose to go to trial haphazardly.[27]
	GR NO. 153974 2006-08-07	MIGUEL BELUSO v. MUNICIPALITY OF PANAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court notes that petitioners failed to raise this point at the earliest opportunity. Still, we are not precluded from considering the same. This Court will not hesitate to consider matters even those raised for the first time on appeal in clearly meritorious situations,[35] such as in this case.
	GR NOS. 162335 & 162605 2005-12-12	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[31] A petition for review should only cover questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable.[32]
	GR NO. 151967 2005-02-16	JOSEFINA C. FRANCISCO v. MASTER IRON WORKS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Since the subject property was acquired during the subsistence of the marriage of Eduardo and Carmelita, under normal circumstances, the same should be presumed to be conjugal property.[34] Article 105 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that the Code shall apply to conjugal partnership established before the code took effect, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the New Civil Code or other laws.[35] Thus, even if Eduardo and Carmelita were married before the effectivity of the Family Code of the Philippines, the property still cannot be considered conjugal property because there can only be but one valid existing marriage at any given time.[36] Article 148 of the Family Code also debilitates against the petitioner's claim since, according to the said article, a co-ownership may ensue in case of cohabitation where, for instance, one party has a pre-existing valid marriage provided that the parents prove their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry and only to the extent of their proportionate interest thereon.[37]