Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. LORENZO G. FRANCISCO AND LORENZA D. FRANCISCO v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 157593 2007-03-22	SPS. ALBERTO AND JOCELYN AZANA v. CRISTOPHER LUMBO CORONA, J.
Meanwhile, the MR of the spouses Azana was granted. As a general rule, it is not the Supreme Court's function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[9] The factual findings of the trial and appellate courts are binding on this Court and are given great weight and respect.[10] However, the rule is not absolute. In instances where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the trial court, on one hand, and the appellate court, on the other, the Court may give the petition due course and re-examine the evidence on record.[11] Satisfied that the foregoing exception applies to this case, the Court ordered the reinstatement of G.R. No. 157593 (this petition).
	GR NO. 157434 2006-09-19	SPS. CLARO AND NIDA BAUTISTA v. BERLINDA F. SILVA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Whether or not petitioners are buyers for value in good faith is a question of fact not cognizable by us in a petition for review.[31] We resolve only questions of law; we do not try facts nor examine testimonial or documentary evidence on record. We leave these to the trial and appellate courts to whose findings and conclusions we accord great weight and respect, especially when their findings concur.[32] We may have at times reversed their findings and conclusions but we resort to this only under exceptional circumstances as when it is shown that said courts failed to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[33] No such exceptional circumstance obtains in the present case for we find the conclusions of the RTC and CA supported by the established facts and applicable law. However, we do not fully subscribe to some of their views on why petitioners cannot be considered in good faith, as we will discuss below.
	GR NO. 146294 2006-07-31	JOHN ABING v. JULIET WAEYAN GARCIA, J.
While the question raised is essentially one of fact, of which the Court normally eschews from, yet, given the conflicting factual findings of the three courts below, the Court shall go by the exception[4] to the general rule and proceed to make its own assessment of the evidence.