This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-09-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Incessantly, we have declared that factual findings of the CA supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding.[8] In an appeal via certiorari, the Court may not review the factual findings of the CA. It is not the Court's function under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to review, examine, and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[9] | |||||
|
2005-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The right of legal redemption pertains to Placida's original co-owners, namely, Eugenio Tabada, Raymunda Tabada and Patrecia Tabada, and their respective heirs,[21] not to petitioners who are the heirs of Placida. Also, the written notification should come from the vendor or prospective vendor, Placida in this case, and not from any other person.[22] This is so because the vendor is in the best position to know who are his co-owners that under the law must be notified of the sale. Also, the notice by the seller removes all doubts as to fact of the sale, its perfection; and its validity, the notice being a reaffirmation thereof, so that the party notified need not entertain doubt that the seller may still contest the alienation. This assurance would not exist if the buyer should give the notice.[23] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners also claim the purchase price was not grossly inadequate so as to invalidate the sale of subject properties. True, mere inadequacy of the price does not necessarily void a contract of sale. However, said inadequacy may indicate that there was a defect in the vendor's consent.[10] More important, it must be pointed out that the trial court and the Court of Appeals voided the sale of the subject properties not because the price was grossly inadequate, but because the presumptions of fraud and undue influence exerted upon the vendor had not been overcome by petitioners, the parties interested in enforcing the contract. | |||||