This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-07-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We sustain the petitioner's separateness from that of Aircon in this case. It bears stressing that the petitioner was never a party to the contract. Privity of contracts take effect only between parties, their successors-in-interest, heirs and assigns.[32] The petitioner, which has a | |||||
|
2005-05-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We agree with the respondent that the threshold issue in this case "whether the petitioners and the respondent had agreed that the net price of 24-Lot was only P140,000.00 as it appears in the Pre-Need Purchase Agreement[42] is factual. We, likewise, agree with his contention that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only issues of law may be raised in this Court. However, the said rule is without exception. In Josefa v. Zhandong Trading Corporation,[43] the Court held that, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it may delve into and resolve factual issues on the following reasons: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. | |||||