Lawyerly

GR No. 152006

2009-10-02

BRION, J.

A title, once registered, cannot be defeated, even by adverse, open and notorious possession.[13] The title, once registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead ignorance of the registration.[14]

GR NO. 171029

2007-11-22

HERMINIA ESTRELLA v. GREGORIO ROBLES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A letter dated 9 November 1960 written by then Mayor Ruben Geronimo thanking the respondent's father for the help providing filling materials for Bouzer Avenue (Otero Avenue at present), Mabayuan, Olongapo, where the subject property is located. Based on the aforementioned evidence, the DENR found that the petitioner's protest of the disposition of the subject land in favor of the respondent was without basis. The disposition of the subject land cannot be questioned in a case for unlawful detainer. Under the Public Land Act, the Director of Lands primarily and the DENR Secretary ultimately have the authority to dispose of and manage public lands. And while the DENR's jurisdiction over public lands does not negate the authority of courts of justice to resolve questions of possession, the DENR's decision would prevail with regard to the respective rights of public land claimants. Regular courts would have no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the award of the public land.[44]

GR No. 123346

2005-11-29

MANOTOK REALTY v. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

At the outset, it bears stressing that under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, our jurisdiction over cases brought to us from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and correcting errors of law committed by said court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not our function to review factual issues and examine, evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties.[33] We are not bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[34]

GR NO. 160573

2005-10-19

GRACE A. BASMAYOR v. LOIDA B. ATENCIO

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioner also seeks this Court's determination of the probative value of the certification made by Director Cueva. But petitioner ought to remember that this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.[24]

GR No. 125837

2004-10-06

REYNALDO CANO CHUA v. CA

TINGA, J,

Petitioner's arguments are mere reiterations of his arguments submitted before the SSC and the Court of Appeals. More importantly, petitioner wants this Court to review factual questions already passed upon by the SSC and the Court of Appeals which are not cognizable by a petition for review under Rule 45. Well-entrenched is the rule that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, the findings of fact being generally conclusive on the Court and it is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.[34]

GR No. 143273

2004-09-20

RISER AIRCONDITIONING SERVICES CORPORATION v. CONFIELD CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

On petitioner's claim that the settlement amount was commensurate with its 78% work accomplishment, suffice it to say that this is a factual issue. Time and again, we have ruled that "the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law allegedly committed by the Appellate Court."[21] It is not for us to weigh evidence all over again.

GR No. 130876

2003-12-05

FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Finally, petitioners' right of action is barred neither by prescription nor by laches. This action seeks a declaration of nullity of private respondent's reconstituted title on the ground, among others, of lack of jurisdiction. Such action does not prescribe.[21] As for laches, we must not lose sight of the basic postulate that it is a doctrine of equity which should never be used as a shield for fraud or wrongdoing by the very party responsible therefor.[22] The private respondent, operating under its previous name, was an active participant in the wrongful use and subsequent disappearance of the source document used in the reconstitution. Under such circumstances, private respondent cannot invoke laches to defeat petitioners' right to assail the validity of the reconstituted title because laches cannot be applied when manifest wrong or injustice will result.[23]

GR No. 152807

2003-08-12

HEIRS OF LOURDES S. SABANPAN v. ALBERTO C. COMORPOSA

PANGANIBAN, J.

The powers given to the LMB and the DENR to alienate and dispose of public land does not, however, divest regular courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants to protect their respective possessions and occupations.[14] The power to determine who has actual physical possession or occupation of public land and who has the better right of possession over it remains with the courts.[15] But once the DENR has decided, particularly through the grant of a homestead patent and the issuance of a certificate of title, its decision on these points will normally prevail.[16]

GR No. 132115

2002-01-04

TEOFILO C. VILLARICO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Private respondent Diosdado Azarraga's contention, in our view, is meritorious. Whether petitioner is a mortgagee-purchaser in good faith and for value is a factual issue. In a petition for review, only questions of law may be raised. Even though there are exceptions, petitioner did not show that this case is one of them.[5] The same principle applies to the claim of Lolita Azarraga concerning the amount of her loan obligation. Being factual, we are not inclined to disturb the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

GR No. 139789

2001-07-19

IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF POTENCIANO ILUSORIO v. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO-BILDNER SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO-YAP

PARDO, J.

Third. Petitioner failed to sufficiently convince the Court why we should not rely on the facts found by the Court of Appeals. Erlinda claimed that the facts mentioned in the decision were erroneous and incomplete. We see no reason why the High Court of the land need go to such length. The hornbook doctrine states that findings of fact of the lower courts are conclusive on the Supreme Court.[17] We emphasize, it is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.[18] Although there are exceptions to the rule,[19] Erlinda failed to show that this is an exceptional instance.

	GR No. 152006 2009-10-02	MONTANO PICO v. CATALINA ADALIM-SALCEDO BRION, J.
A title, once registered, cannot be defeated, even by adverse, open and notorious possession.[13] The title, once registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead ignorance of the registration.[14]
	GR NO. 171029 2007-11-22	HERMINIA ESTRELLA v. GREGORIO ROBLES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A letter dated 9 November 1960 written by then Mayor Ruben Geronimo thanking the respondent's father for the help providing filling materials for Bouzer Avenue (Otero Avenue at present), Mabayuan, Olongapo, where the subject property is located. Based on the aforementioned evidence, the DENR found that the petitioner's protest of the disposition of the subject land in favor of the respondent was without basis. The disposition of the subject land cannot be questioned in a case for unlawful detainer. Under the Public Land Act, the Director of Lands primarily and the DENR Secretary ultimately have the authority to dispose of and manage public lands. And while the DENR's jurisdiction over public lands does not negate the authority of courts of justice to resolve questions of possession, the DENR's decision would prevail with regard to the respective rights of public land claimants. Regular courts would have no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the award of the public land.[44]
	GR No. 123346 2005-11-29	MANOTOK REALTY v. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
At the outset, it bears stressing that under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, our jurisdiction over cases brought to us from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and correcting errors of law committed by said court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not our function to review factual issues and examine, evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties.[33] We are not bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[34]
	GR NO. 160573 2005-10-19	GRACE A. BASMAYOR v. LOIDA B. ATENCIO QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner also seeks this Court's determination of the probative value of the certification made by Director Cueva. But petitioner ought to remember that this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.[24]
	GR No. 125837 2004-10-06	REYNALDO CANO CHUA v. CA TINGA, J,
Petitioner's arguments are mere reiterations of his arguments submitted before the SSC and the Court of Appeals. More importantly, petitioner wants this Court to review factual questions already passed upon by the SSC and the Court of Appeals which are not cognizable by a petition for review under Rule 45. Well-entrenched is the rule that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, the findings of fact being generally conclusive on the Court and it is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.[34]
	GR No. 143273 2004-09-20	RISER AIRCONDITIONING SERVICES CORPORATION v. CONFIELD CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On petitioner's claim that the settlement amount was commensurate with its 78% work accomplishment, suffice it to say that this is a factual issue. Time and again, we have ruled that "the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law allegedly committed by the Appellate Court."[21] It is not for us to weigh evidence all over again.
	GR No. 130876 2003-12-05	FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Finally, petitioners' right of action is barred neither by prescription nor by laches. This action seeks a declaration of nullity of private respondent's reconstituted title on the ground, among others, of lack of jurisdiction. Such action does not prescribe.[21] As for laches, we must not lose sight of the basic postulate that it is a doctrine of equity which should never be used as a shield for fraud or wrongdoing by the very party responsible therefor.[22] The private respondent, operating under its previous name, was an active participant in the wrongful use and subsequent disappearance of the source document used in the reconstitution. Under such circumstances, private respondent cannot invoke laches to defeat petitioners' right to assail the validity of the reconstituted title because laches cannot be applied when manifest wrong or injustice will result.[23]
	GR No. 152807 2003-08-12	HEIRS OF LOURDES S. SABANPAN v. ALBERTO C. COMORPOSA PANGANIBAN, J.
The powers given to the LMB and the DENR to alienate and dispose of public land does not, however, divest regular courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants to protect their respective possessions and occupations.[14] The power to determine who has actual physical possession or occupation of public land and who has the better right of possession over it remains with the courts.[15] But once the DENR has decided, particularly through the grant of a homestead patent and the issuance of a certificate of title, its decision on these points will normally prevail.[16]
	GR No. 132115 2002-01-04	TEOFILO C. VILLARICO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Private respondent Diosdado Azarraga's contention, in our view, is meritorious. Whether petitioner is a mortgagee-purchaser in good faith and for value is a factual issue. In a petition for review, only questions of law may be raised. Even though there are exceptions, petitioner did not show that this case is one of them.[5] The same principle applies to the claim of Lolita Azarraga concerning the amount of her loan obligation. Being factual, we are not inclined to disturb the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 139789 2001-07-19	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF POTENCIANO ILUSORIO v. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO-BILDNER SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO-YAP PARDO, J.
Third. Petitioner failed to sufficiently convince the Court why we should not rely on the facts found by the Court of Appeals. Erlinda claimed that the facts mentioned in the decision were erroneous and incomplete. We see no reason why the High Court of the land need go to such length. The hornbook doctrine states that findings of fact of the lower courts are conclusive on the Supreme Court.[17] We emphasize, it is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.[18] Although there are exceptions to the rule,[19] Erlinda failed to show that this is an exceptional instance.

CARQUELO OMANDAM v. CA