This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-07-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that the spouses Pantaleon failed to pay GGDI the balance of the purchase price for the subject property. This is a finding of fact, and it is well-settled that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding upon us.[60] | |||||
|
2015-03-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| While it is true that this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, and not of fact, in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, when the findings of fact are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or when the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, this Court may revisit the evidence in order to arrive at a decision in conformity with the law and evidence at hand.[14] In the instant case, the evidence on record do not support the findings made by the courts below on the alienable and disposable character of the lands in question. | |||||
|
2013-08-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Fourth, both debts are liquidated and demandable. A debt is liquidated when the amount is known or is determinable by inspection of the terms and conditions of relevant documents.[19] There is no dispute that the value of the 398 sacks of corn grains is P85,607. As to Alagao's debt, we disagree with respondent People that the loan amount is only P40,000 since during pre-trial, Alagao herself admitted that she did not only receive P40,000 but P51,730 in the form of cash advances and fertilizers from petitioner. It is well settled that an admission made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties is considered a judicial admission and, under the Rules of Court, requires no proof. Such admission may be controverted only by a showing that it was made through a palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.[20] | |||||
|
2013-06-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The factual backdrop of this case is similar to that of Raquel-Santos v. Court of Appeals,[9] where the Court held that in "a sale of shares of stock, physical delivery of a stock certificate is one of the essential requisites for the transfer of ownership of the stocks purchased." | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we must make it clear that the issues raised by respondent Angeles may not be entertained. For failing to file an appeal, she is bound by the Decision of the RTC. Well entrenched is the rule that "a party who does not appeal from a judgment can no longer seek modification or reversal of the same. He may oppose the appeal of the other party only on grounds consistent with the judgment."[48] For this reason, respondent Angeles may no longer question the propriety and correctness of the annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the cancellation of TCT Nos. 105202 and 105203, and the order to vacate the property. | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[10] 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.[11] | |||||