Lawyerly

GR No. 172020

2010-12-06

TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. NORBERTO CASTAÑARES

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The CA held that the RTC overlooked the fact that there were no adequate evidence presented to prove that petitioner released in full to the respondents the proceeds of the REM loan. Citing Filipinas Marble Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court[17] and Naguiat v. Court of Appeals,[18] the appellate court declared that where there was failure of the mortgagee bank to deliver the consideration for which the mortgage was executed, the contract of loan was invalid and consequently the accessory contract of mortgage is likewise null and void. In this case, only P35,000.00 out of the P86,000.00 stated in the REM dated April 18, 1977 was released to respondents, and hence the REM was valid only to that extent. For the same reason, the second REM was null and void since no actual loan proceeds were released to the respondents-mortgagors. The REMs are not connected to the subsequent promissory notes because these were signed by respondents for the sole purpose of securing packing credits and export advances. Further citing Acme Shoe, Rubber and Plastic Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[19] the CA stated that the rule is that a pledge, real estate mortgage or antichresis may exceptionally secure after-incurred obligations only as long as these debts are accurately described therein. In this case, neither of the two REMs accurately described or even mentioned the securing of future debts or obligations.[20]

GR No. 154270

2010-03-09

TEOFISTO OÑO v. VICENTE N. LIM

BERSAMIN, J.

It is emphasized, too, that the CA upheld the conclusion arrived at by the RTC that the signature of Antonio had not been simulated or forged. The CA ruled that the testimony of the notary public who had notarized the confirmation of sale to the effect that Antonio and Luisa had appeared before him prevailed over that of the petitioners' expert witness. The concurrence of their conclusion on the genuineness of Antonio's signature now binds the Court.[23]

GR No. 172890

2008-04-30

S.L. TEVES v. CASIANO ERAN

TINGA, J,

Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which governs appeals by certiorari, only questions of law may be raised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. A question of law which the Court may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.[13]

GR No. 178537

2008-02-11

SPS. RAFAEL P. ESTANISLAO AND ZENAIDA ESTANISLAO v. EAST WEST BANKING CORPORATION

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Since there is no more credit to collect, no principal obligation to speak of, then there is no more second deed of chattel mortgage that may subsist. A chattel mortgage cannot exist as an independent contract since its consideration is the same as that of the principal contract. Being a mere accessory contract, its validity would depend on the validity of the loan secured by it.[14] This being so, the amended complaint for replevin should be dismissed, because the chattel mortgage agreement upon which it is based had been rendered ineffectual.

GR NO. 158762

2007-04-03

SILVANO B. GAJE v. PATRICIA S. VDA. DE DALISAY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The issues beg a review of the evidence presented by the parties, despite the finding of the Court of Appeals that no error was committed by the trial court in appreciating the evidence established during the trial; hence, it is clearly a question of fact. "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."[21] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are in fact generally binding on this Court.[22] A question of law which the court may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[23]

GR No. 154878

2007-03-16

CAROLYN M. GARCIA

CORONA, J.

A loan is a real contract, not consensual, and as such is perfected only upon the delivery of the object of the contract.[25] This is evident in Art. 1934 of the Civil Code which provides:An accepted promise to deliver something by way of commodatum or simple loan is binding upon the parties, but the commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be perfected until the delivery of the object of the contract . (Emphasis supplied) Upon delivery of the object of the contract of loan (in this case the money received by the debtor when the checks were encashed) the debtor acquires ownership of such money or loan proceeds and is bound to pay the creditor an equal amount.[26]

GR NO. 128099

2006-12-20

FELIX CAMITAN v. CA

TINGA, J.

Petitioners' other claims, to wit: (i) respondent is guilty of estoppel and laches in asserting its rights over the property; (ii) respondent is guilty of fraud and bad faith when it concealed the possession of the deed of absolute sale of the property and the Owner's Copy, and when it failed to register and have the title of the property transferred to its name; and (iii) the property in question could be a part of ill-gotten wealth surrendered to the PCGG, are immaterial and irrelevant to the case. Thus, there is no need to dwell on them. The instant petition merely questions the propriety of the annulment order on the ground of the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. Any other issues, such as the ownership of the property, or the motives for the non-registration of the sale or the non-transfer of the title are beyond the ambit of the petition. Besides, the determination of said issues necessitates a factual inquiry which this Court does not perform in a petition for review.[30]

GR NO. 138703

2006-06-30

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

Incidentally, the CA sustained the validity of a loan obligation but annulled the mortgage securing it on the ground of failure of consideration. This is erroneous. A mortgage is a mere accessory contract and its validity would depend on the validity of the loan secured by it.[54] Hence, the consideration of the mortgage contract is the same as that of the principal contract from which it receives life, and without which it cannot exist as an independent contract. [55] The debtor cannot escape the consequences of the mortgage contract once the validity of the loan is upheld.

GR NO. 169632

2006-03-28

UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES' UNION-FFW v. CA

GARCIA, J.

Prefatorily, we restate the time-honored principle that in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below, our jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court.[13] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[14]

GR NO. 168237

2006-02-22

THELMA BUDUHAN v. CURSON PAKURAO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The issues raised by the petitioner invite us to rule on questions of fact, contrary to the settled rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review. There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.[13]

GR NOS. 150773 & 153599

2005-09-30

SPS. DAVID B. CARPO AND RECHILDA S. CARPO v. ELEANOR CHUA

TINGA, J.

The question is crucial to the present petition even if the subject thereof is not the annulment of the loan contract but that of the mortgage contract. The consideration of the mortgage contract is the same as that of the principal contract from which it receives life, and without which it cannot exist as an independent contract. Being a mere accessory contract, the validity of the mortgage contract would depend on the validity of the loan secured by it.[16]

GR NO. 161865

2005-03-10

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MONET’S EXPORT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Prefatorily, we restate the time honored principle that in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court.[27] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[28]

GR No. 138906

2004-12-13

MOISES BENTULAN v. SALINAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Anent the petitioners' contention that the notarized deed of sale enjoys the presumption of validity, suffice it to state here that this principle is not absolute. This Court has previously declared that the presumption of validity as to authenticity and due execution of public documents may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[32] In order to defeat the presumption, it is incumbent upon herein respondents to prove "with clear, convincing, strong and irrefutable proof"[33] that the notarized deed of sale is, in fact, invalid.

GR No. 135043

2004-07-14

TOWNE v. CA

TINGA, J,

The alleged errors, however, refer to the appreciation of evidence which the appellate and trial courts made. As such, they involve questions of fact of which the Court cannot take cognizance of In the case of Naguiat v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court said that there is a question of fact when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts, while there is a question of law when such doubt or difference refers to what the law is on a certain state of facts.

	GR No. 172020 2010-12-06	TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. NORBERTO CASTAÑARES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The CA held that the RTC overlooked the fact that there were no adequate evidence presented to prove that petitioner released in full to the respondents the proceeds of the REM loan. Citing Filipinas Marble Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court[17] and Naguiat v. Court of Appeals,[18] the appellate court declared that where there was failure of the mortgagee bank to deliver the consideration for which the mortgage was executed, the contract of loan was invalid and consequently the accessory contract of mortgage is likewise null and void. In this case, only P35,000.00 out of the P86,000.00 stated in the REM dated April 18, 1977 was released to respondents, and hence the REM was valid only to that extent. For the same reason, the second REM was null and void since no actual loan proceeds were released to the respondents-mortgagors. The REMs are not connected to the subsequent promissory notes because these were signed by respondents for the sole purpose of securing packing credits and export advances. Further citing Acme Shoe, Rubber and Plastic Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[19] the CA stated that the rule is that a pledge, real estate mortgage or antichresis may exceptionally secure after-incurred obligations only as long as these debts are accurately described therein. In this case, neither of the two REMs accurately described or even mentioned the securing of future debts or obligations.[20]
	GR No. 154270 2010-03-09	TEOFISTO OÑO v. VICENTE N. LIM BERSAMIN, J.
It is emphasized, too, that the CA upheld the conclusion arrived at by the RTC that the signature of Antonio had not been simulated or forged. The CA ruled that the testimony of the notary public who had notarized the confirmation of sale to the effect that Antonio and Luisa had appeared before him prevailed over that of the petitioners' expert witness. The concurrence of their conclusion on the genuineness of Antonio's signature now binds the Court.[23]
	GR No. 172890 2008-04-30	S.L. TEVES v. CASIANO ERAN TINGA, J,
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which governs appeals by certiorari, only questions of law may be raised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. A question of law which the Court may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.[13]
	GR No. 178537 2008-02-11	SPS. RAFAEL P. ESTANISLAO AND ZENAIDA ESTANISLAO v. EAST WEST BANKING CORPORATION YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Since there is no more credit to collect, no principal obligation to speak of, then there is no more second deed of chattel mortgage that may subsist. A chattel mortgage cannot exist as an independent contract since its consideration is the same as that of the principal contract. Being a mere accessory contract, its validity would depend on the validity of the loan secured by it.[14] This being so, the amended complaint for replevin should be dismissed, because the chattel mortgage agreement upon which it is based had been rendered ineffectual.
	GR NO. 158762 2007-04-03	SILVANO B. GAJE v. PATRICIA S. VDA. DE DALISAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The issues beg a review of the evidence presented by the parties, despite the finding of the Court of Appeals that no error was committed by the trial court in appreciating the evidence established during the trial; hence, it is clearly a question of fact. "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."[21] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are in fact generally binding on this Court.[22] A question of law which the court may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[23]
	GR No. 154878 2007-03-16	CAROLYN M. GARCIA CORONA, J.
A loan is a real contract, not consensual, and as such is perfected only upon the delivery of the object of the contract.[25] This is evident in Art. 1934 of the Civil Code which provides:An accepted promise to deliver something by way of commodatum or simple loan is binding upon the parties, but the commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be perfected until the delivery of the object of the contract . (Emphasis supplied) Upon delivery of the object of the contract of loan (in this case the money received by the debtor when the checks were encashed) the debtor acquires ownership of such money or loan proceeds and is bound to pay the creditor an equal amount.[26]
	GR NO. 128099 2006-12-20	FELIX CAMITAN v. CA TINGA, J.
Petitioners' other claims, to wit: (i) respondent is guilty of estoppel and laches in asserting its rights over the property; (ii) respondent is guilty of fraud and bad faith when it concealed the possession of the deed of absolute sale of the property and the Owner's Copy, and when it failed to register and have the title of the property transferred to its name; and (iii) the property in question could be a part of ill-gotten wealth surrendered to the PCGG, are immaterial and irrelevant to the case. Thus, there is no need to dwell on them. The instant petition merely questions the propriety of the annulment order on the ground of the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. Any other issues, such as the ownership of the property, or the motives for the non-registration of the sale or the non-transfer of the title are beyond the ambit of the petition. Besides, the determination of said issues necessitates a factual inquiry which this Court does not perform in a petition for review.[30]
	GR NO. 138703 2006-06-30	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Incidentally, the CA sustained the validity of a loan obligation but annulled the mortgage securing it on the ground of failure of consideration. This is erroneous. A mortgage is a mere accessory contract and its validity would depend on the validity of the loan secured by it.[54] Hence, the consideration of the mortgage contract is the same as that of the principal contract from which it receives life, and without which it cannot exist as an independent contract. [55] The debtor cannot escape the consequences of the mortgage contract once the validity of the loan is upheld.
	GR NO. 169632 2006-03-28	UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES' UNION-FFW v. CA GARCIA, J.
Prefatorily, we restate the time-honored principle that in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below, our jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court.[13] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[14]
	GR NO. 168237 2006-02-22	THELMA BUDUHAN v. CURSON PAKURAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The issues raised by the petitioner invite us to rule on questions of fact, contrary to the settled rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review. There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.[13]
	GR NOS. 150773 & 153599 2005-09-30	SPS. DAVID B. CARPO AND RECHILDA S. CARPO v. ELEANOR CHUA TINGA, J.
The question is crucial to the present petition even if the subject thereof is not the annulment of the loan contract but that of the mortgage contract. The consideration of the mortgage contract is the same as that of the principal contract from which it receives life, and without which it cannot exist as an independent contract. Being a mere accessory contract, the validity of the mortgage contract would depend on the validity of the loan secured by it.[16]
	GR NO. 161865 2005-03-10	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MONET’S EXPORT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Prefatorily, we restate the time honored principle that in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court.[27] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[28]
	GR No. 138906 2004-12-13	MOISES BENTULAN v. SALINAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Anent the petitioners' contention that the notarized deed of sale enjoys the presumption of validity, suffice it to state here that this principle is not absolute. This Court has previously declared that the presumption of validity as to authenticity and due execution of public documents may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[32] In order to defeat the presumption, it is incumbent upon herein respondents to prove "with clear, convincing, strong and irrefutable proof"[33] that the notarized deed of sale is, in fact, invalid.
	GR No. 135043 2004-07-14	TOWNE v. CA TINGA, J,
The alleged errors, however, refer to the appreciation of evidence which the appellate and trial courts made. As such, they involve questions of fact of which the Court cannot take cognizance of In the case of Naguiat v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court said that there is a question of fact when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts, while there is a question of law when such doubt or difference refers to what the law is on a certain state of facts.

CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT v. CA