Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO K. LITONJUA v. MARY ANN GRACE FERNANDEZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 171464 2013-11-27	SPS. ELISEO R. BAUTISTA AND EMPERATRIZ C. BAUTISTA v. SPS. MILA JALANDONI AND ANTONIO JALANDONI AND MANILA CREDIT CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
Spouses Bautista's claim of good faith is negated by their failure to verify the extent and nature of Nasino's authority. Since Spouses Bautista did not deal with the registered owners but with Nasino, who merely represented herself to be their agent, they should have scrutinized all factual circumstances necessary to determine her authority to insure that there are no flaws in her title or her capacity to transfer the land.[33] They should not have merely relied on her verbal representation that she was selling the subject lots on behalf of Spouses Jalandoni. Moreover, Eliseo's claim that he did not require Nasino to give him a copy of the special power of attorney because he trusted her is unacceptable. Well settled is the rule that persons dealing with an assumed agency are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it.[34] As stated, Spouses Bautista's failure to observe the required degree of caution in ascertaining the genuineness and extent of Nasino's authority is tantamount to bad faith that precludes them from claiming the rights of a purchaser in good faith.[35]
	GR No. 182349 2013-07-24	REMAN RECIO v. ALTAMIRANO REYES, J.
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, jurisdiction is generally limited to the review of errors of law committed by the appellate court. The Supreme Court is not obliged to review all over again the evidence which the parties adduced in the court a quo. Of course, the general rule admits of exceptions, such as where the factual findings of the CA and the trial court are conflicting or contradictory.[21] In the instant case, the findings of the trial court and its conclusion based on the said findings contradict those of the CA. After a careful review, the Court finds no reversible error with the decision of the CA.
	GR No. 172528 2008-02-26	JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA v. BENJAMIN A. SILAYRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this case, the Court must re-examine the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, as well as the contrary findings of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter. While it is a recognized principle that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally embark in the evaluation of evidence adduced during trial, this rule allows for exceptions.[34] One of these exceptions covers instances when the findings of fact of the trial court, or in this case of the quasi-judicial agencies concerned, are conflicting or contradictory with those of the Court of Appeals.[35]
	GR No. 171401 2007-12-13	ADELAIDA AMADO v. RENATO SALVADOR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The main controversy in the petition is whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale of the subject property. In resolving this issue, this Court would necessarily re-examine the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, as well as the contrary findings of the trial court. It is a recognized principle that while this Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally embark on the evaluation of evidence adduced during trial, this rule allows exceptions,[27] such as when the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are conflicting or contradictory.[28]
	GR NO. 159617 2007-08-08	ROBERTO C. SICAM v. LULU V. JORGE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Our jurisdiction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to the review of errors of law committed by the appellate court. Generally, the findings of fact of the appellate court are deemed conclusive and we are not duty-bound to analyze and calibrate all over again the evidence adduced by the parties in the court a quo.[12] This rule, however, is not without exceptions, such as where the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are conflicting or contradictory[13] as is obtaining in the instant case.
	GR No. 128120 2004-10-20	SWEDISH MATCH v. CA TINGA, J,
However, for a note or memorandum to satisfy the Statute, it must be complete in itself and cannot rest partly in writing and partly in parol. The note or memorandum must contain the names of the parties, the terms and conditions of the contract, and a description of the property sufficient to render it capable of identification.[28] Such note or memorandum must contain the essential elements of the contract expressed with certainty that may be ascertained from the note or memorandum itself, or some other writing to which it refers or within which it is connected, without resorting to parol evidence.[29]