This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-08-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Cobarde,[10] the Court held that as an exception to the binding effect of the trial court's factual findings which were affirmed by the CA, a review of such factual findings may be made when the judgment of the CA is premised on a misapprehension of facts or a failure to consider certain relevant facts that would lead to a completely different conclusion. In the same vein, we declared in Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction Company,[11] that while it is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not, as a rule, undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties, a number of exceptions have nevertheless been recognized by the Court, such as when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, and when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. Petitioner invokes the foregoing exceptions urging this Court to pass upon anew the CA's findings regarding the status of the subject land and compliance with the required character and duration of possession by an applicant for judicial confirmation of title. | |||||
|
2008-02-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the dismissal in DBP v. CA of the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 84-25858 constitutes a supervening event as it virtually blotted out the April 10, 1990 RTC Decision rendered therein.[37] No vested right accrued from said RTC Decision in favor of private respondent; no ministerial duty impelled the CA to allow execution thereof. | |||||
|
2006-11-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Anent the second issue, contrary to petitioners' contention, the trial court found that petitioner Teresita Rustia sent respondent a letter begging the latter's indulgence regarding her difficulty and that of her husband in paying the 5% monthly interest on their P130,000.00 loan. This finding by the trial court was upheld by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. Indeed, such letter proves that petitioners agreed to pay interest. It is basic that findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[15] Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err when it sustained the lower court's finding that respondent is entitled to the payment of interests on the subject loan. | |||||