This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-09-02 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court does not agree with petitioners' argument that the person of de Guzman is "now merged in the person of HOLCIM or that HOLCIM has assumed her personal liability or the judgment rendered against her."[74] Nothing in the records shows that HOLCIM admitted of assuming all the liabilities of de Guzman prior to the sale of the subject property. HOLCIM, however, expresses its willingness to pay royalty only to the rightful owner of the disputed area. Thus, in the event that the amount paid by HOLCIM to de Guzman has been proven, de Guzman is ordered to turn over the payment to the petitioners.[75] If the petitioners insist that HOLCIM owed them more than what it paid to de Guzman, the petitioners cannot invoke the CA's decision which was affirmed by the Court in G.R. No. 120004 to ask for additional royalty. As earlier discussed, this must be addressed in a separate action for the purpose. All told, the Court finds no reversible error with the decision of the CA in nullifying the orders of the RTC for having been issued in excess of its jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2008-07-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In this case, the trial court found that the preponderance of evidence favors respondents as the possessors of Lot No. 2139 for over 30 years, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest. The question of who between petitioners and respondents had prior possession of the property is a factual question whose resolution is the function of the lower courts.[17] When the factual findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are supported by substantial evidence, they are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.[18] While the rule is subject to exceptions, no exception exists in this case. | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised.[21] In petitions such as the one filed in G.R. No. 150483, questions of fact may not be the proper subject of appeal under Rule 45 as this mode of appeal is generally confined to questions of law.[22] Well entrenched is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts.[23] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are in fact binding on us subject to certain exceptions.[24] Cases where an appeal involved questions of fact, of law, or both fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.[25] This is attested to by Section 15, Rule 44 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The section reads:SEC. 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal. - x x x he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties. | |||||
|
2007-02-22 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' alternative prayer for reconveyance of Lot No. 1430 based on the principle of constructive trust[40] must likewise fail considering that their claimed ownership of Lot No. 1430 was found to be without basis. Under this principle, registration of property by one person in his name, whether by mistake or fraud, the real owner being another person, impresses upon the title so acquired the character of a constructive trust for the real owner, which would justify an action for reconveyance.[41] The essence of an action for reconveyance is that the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is sought instead is the transfer of the property which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful owner or to one with a better right.[42] Clearly, not being the owners of Lot No. 1430, petitioners cannot ask for reconveyance of the property to them under the principle of constructive trust. | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Reconveyance is available not only to the legal owner of a property but also to the person with a better right than the person under whose name said property was erroneously registered.[8] While respondent is not the legal owner of the disputed lots, she has a better right than petitioner to the contested lots on the following grounds: first, the deed of conditional sale executed by DBP vested on her the right to repurchase the lots and second, her right to repurchase them would have subsisted had they (the Gasatayas) not defrauded her. | |||||
|
2006-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it bears stressing that, except for the issue on exemplary damages, petitioners raise pure questions of fact, which may not be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari.[12] Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions:(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; | |||||