Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. CA AND SPS. NESTOR NICOLAS AND ALLEM NICOLAS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182555 2010-09-07	LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
[161] Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120706, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 85, 92.
	GR NO. 138348 2005-12-09	MUNICIPALITY OF BUTIG v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Time and again it has been ruled that an allegation in a pleading is not evidence but is a declaration that has to be proved by evidence.[19]
	GR No. 150656 2003-04-29	MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS v. ABELARDO B. LICAROS CARPIO, J.
The Court is bound by the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts that the parties freely and voluntarily executed the documents and that there is no showing of coercion or fraud. As a rule, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, the Court does not pass upon questions of fact as the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts are binding on the Court. The Court is not a trier of facts. The Court will not examine the evidence introduced by the parties below to determine if the trial and appellate courts correctly assessed and evaluated the evidence on record.[17]
	GR No. 147758 2002-06-26	SPS. ARSENIO R. REYES AND NIEVES S. REYES v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
In their Answer in the court below, petitioners alleged that they first obtained a loan and this was subsequently converted to respondent's contribution to the partnership.[25] Nieves' testimony that the amount was originally respondent's partnership contribution which was later converted into a loan contradicts this. It has been ruled that an allegation in a pleading is not evidence but is a declaration that has to be proved by evidence.[26] If evidence contrary to the allegation is presented, such evidence controls, not the allegation in the pleading itself, although admittedly it may dent the credibility of the witness,[27] as in this case. Variance between petitioners' allegations and Nieves' testimony convinced the trial court that she was an unreliable witness. It was precisely for this reason that the trial court rejected her testimony on this point and resolved that the evidence did not support petitioners' allegation that there was a novation of the loan.[28] The trial court concluded that the money in question was the object of a loan between the parties and this loan was never the subject of any novation.
	GR No. 117434 2001-02-09	BENGUET EXPLORATION v. CA MENDOZA, J.
First. It is settled that only questions of law may be raised on appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. The trial court, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying, is in a better position to decide the question of their credibility. Hence, unless the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, the findings of the trial court must be accorded the highest respect, even finality, by this Court.[22] It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeals made the same factual findings as did the trial court.[23]