This case has been cited 17 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Viewed in the light of the autonomous nature of contracts enunciated under Article 1306[50] of the Civil Code, on the other hand, we find that the Kasunduan was correctly found by the RTC to be a valid and binding contract between the parties. Already partially executed with respondents' receipt of P1,000.00 from Manuel upon the execution thereof, the Kasunduan simply concerned the sale of the former's 60% share in the subject parcel, less the 1,750-square meter portion to be retained, for the agreed consideration of P180,000.00. As a notarized document that carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution,[51] the Kasunduan was shown to have been signed by respondents with full knowledge of its contents, as may be gleaned from the testimonies elicited from Philip[52] and Leovina.[53] | |||||
|
2011-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that, as a public document, the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in favor of Eden not only enjoys a presumption of regularity[17] but is also considered prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.[18] A party assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document is, consequently, required to present evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[19] In view of the Spouses Realubit's failure to discharge this onus, we find that both the RTC and the CA correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed of Assignment upon the combined strength of the above-discussed disputable presumptions and the testimonies elicited from Eden[20] and Notary Public Rolando Diaz.[21] As for the Spouses' Realubit's bare assertion that Biondo's signature on the same document appears to be forged, suffice it to say that, like fraud,[22] forgery is never presumed and must likewise be proved by clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same.[23] Aside from not being borne out by a comparison of Biondo's signatures on the Joint Venture Agreement[24] and the Deed of Assignment,[25] said forgery is, moreover debunked by Biondo's duly authenticated certification dated 17 November 1998, confirming the transfer of his interest in the business in favor of Eden.[26] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is the common defense of the respondent-purchasers that they each checked the title of the subject lot when it was his turn to acquire the same and found it clean, meaning without annotation of any encumbrance or adverse third party interest. And it is upon this postulate that each claims to be an innocent purchaser for value, or one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays therefor a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving such notice.[40] | |||||
|
2010-04-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[18] However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[19] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith lies upon one who asserts that status.[26] | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court notes the factual nature of the questions raised in the petition. Although the general rule is that only questions of law are entertained by the Court in petitions for review on certiorari,[42] as the Court is not tasked to repeat the lower courts' analysis or weighing of evidence,[43] there are instances when the Court may resolve factual issues, such as (1) when the trial court misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case;[44] and (2) when the findings of facts of the CA and the trial court differ.[45] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have stressed that the remedy of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should involve only questions of law, not questions of fact. There exists a question of law when there is doubt on what the law applicable to a certain set of facts is. Questions of fact, on the other hand, arise when there is an issue regarding the truth or falsity of the statement of facts.[13] Questions on whether certain pieces of evidence should be accorded probative value or whether the proofs presented by one party are clear, convincing and adequate to establish a proposition are issues of fact. Such questions are not subject to review by this Court. As a general rule, we review cases decided by the CA only if they involve questions of law raised and distinctly set forth in the petition. [14] | |||||
|
2007-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Again, we are not persuaded. The burden of proving the purchaser's good faith lies in the one who asserts the same. In discharging the burden, it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith.[23] In Arrofo v. Quiño,[24] we have elucidated that:[A] person dealing with registered land, [is not required] to inquire further that what the Torrens title on its face indicates. This rule, however, is not absolute but admits of exceptions. | |||||
|
2006-10-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Indeed, this Court cannot review factual findings on appeal, especially when they are borne out by the records or are based on substantial evidence.[22] In this case, the findings of the RTC were affirmed by the CA and are adequately supported by the records. | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[19] | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In any event, we are not convinced that the courts a quo erred in declaring null and void the Deed of Sale. Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[23] | |||||
|
2006-03-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. It is not the task of an appellate court to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the administrative body and to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency in respect of sufficiency of evidence. Furthermore, as a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court, provided they are borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence.[8] It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[9] | |||||
|
2005-08-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Both parties concede that a purchaser in good faith can safely rely on the four corners of a Torrens Title. The disagreement lies, however, as to whether or not Teodulfo should be considered as a purchaser in good faith and thus enjoy the protection of the Torrens system. Indeed, this question is one of fact and not one of law. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsity of the statement of facts while a question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.[17] | |||||
|
2005-08-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon him who asserts that status.[12] In discharging the burden, it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith.[13] The rule is settled that a buyer of real property in possession of persons other than the seller must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in possession. Without such inquiry, the buyer can hardly be regarded as buyer in good faith and cannot have any right over the property.[14] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Anent ANCO's first assignment of error, i.e., the appellate court committed error in concluding that the negligence of ANCO's representatives was the proximate cause of the loss, said issue is a question of fact assailing the lower court's appreciation of evidence on the negligence or lack thereof of the crewmembers of the D/B Lucio. As a rule, findings of fact of lower courts, particularly when affirmed by the appellate court, are deemed final and conclusive. The Supreme Court cannot review such findings on appeal, especially when they are borne out by the records or are based on substantial evidence.[9] As held in the case of Donato v. Court of Appeals,[10] in this jurisdiction, it is a fundamental and settled rule that findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case.[11] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| This Court has, time and time again, pointed out that it is not a trier of facts; and that, save for a few exceptional instances, its function is not to analyze or weigh all over again the factual findings of the lower courts.[19] There is a question of law when doubts or differences arise as to what law pertains to a certain state of facts, and a question of fact when the doubt pertains to the truth or falsity of alleged facts.[20] | |||||
|
2003-12-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the general rule is that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[18] Factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on us especially when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court.[19] This is because it is not our function to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again.[20] However, this general rule admits of exceptions, to wit:(a) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual findings are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and, (h) where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[21] | |||||