This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Q: Now, this Lot No. 4163, do you know if this lot is also titled? A: Yes, it was titled, only in the name of Silveria Flores because my aunt was not able to go with her; only my aunt was alone at that time.[24] x x x Q: And as you have stated earlier, that what you are intending to sell was Lot 4163 to plaintiff Alejandra Delfino, and during this time that you sold this intended lot 4163, you were not aware this particular lot 4163 was titled exclusively in the name of Silveria Flores, is that correct? A: I knew already that the said lot was already titled, but it was titled only in the name of Silveria Flores because she was the only one who went there to have it titled in her name. And at the time of the sale of the lot, we demanded for the title from Silveria Flores, and what she delivered was the 5734 (sic).[25] Petitioners now claim that the foregoing testimony of Trinidad Flores was biased. But we note that the appellate court sustained the trial court's reliance on her testimony, which both found to be credible. As consistently held, factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding upon this Court[26] and entitled to utmost respect.[27] Considering these findings, we see no reason to disturb the trial court's finding, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the object of the contract of sale, as intended and understood by the parties, was Lot 4163 covered by OCT 3129-A which Alejandra, and now her heirs, have been occupying. The designation of the lot in the deed of sale as Lot 5734, covered by OCT 4918-A, was a mistake in the preparation of the document. Thus, we concur in the conclusion reached by the courts a quo that reformation of the instrument is proper. | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| When the issue involved is the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, it is well-settled that findings of trial courts deserve the highest degree of respect.[27] Their assessment may be disregarded only if they have committed substantial errors or overlooked determinative facts that would have otherwise dictated a different conclusion or verdict.[28] We find no cogent reason to depart from this doctrine. | |||||