Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. PATRICIO AND MYRNA BERNALES v. HEIRS OF JULIAN SAMBAAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 160408 2016-01-11	SPS. ROBERTO v. SPS. SANTOS BERSAMIN, J.
That the petitioners are raising factual issues about the true nature of their transaction with the respondent is already of itself, sufficient reason to forthwith deny due course to the petition for review on certiorari. They cannot ignore that any appeal to the Court is limited to questions of law because the Court is not a trier of facts. As such, the factual findings of the CA should be respected and accorded great weight, and even finality when supported by the substantial evidence on record.[8] Moreover, in view of the unanimity between the RTC and the CA on the deed of sale being void, varying only in their justifications, the Court affirms the CA, and adopts its conclusions on the invalidity of the deed of sale.
	GR No. 193517 2014-01-15	HEIRS OF VICTORINO SARILI v. PEDRO F. LAGROSA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
At this juncture, it is well to note that it was, in fact, the February 16, 1978 deed of sale which as the CA found was actually the source of the issuance of TCT No. 262218. Nonetheless, this document was admitted to be also a forgery.[55] Since Sps. Sarili's claim over the subject property is based on forged documents, no valid title had been transferred to them (and, in turn, to petitioners). Verily, when the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the property.[56] Accordingly, TCT No. 262218 in the name of Victorino married to Isabel should be annulled, while TCT No. 55979 in the name of respondent should be reinstated.
	GR No. 195592 2012-09-05	MAGDIWANG REALTY CORPORATION v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION REYES, J.
The settled rule is that conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case. The fact that the CA adopted the findings of fact of the trial court makes the same binding upon this Court.[28] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not our function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. A question of fact would arise in such event.[29] Although jurisprudence admits of several exceptions to the foregoing rules, the present case does not fall under any of them.
	GR No. 187451 2012-08-29	JESUS VIRTUCIO MENDOZA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal and, in fact, are accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence on the record.[29] It appears, however, that the conclusion made by the RTC was not substantially supported. Even the RTC itself noted in its decision: The approval of a Homestead Application merely authorizes the applicant to take possession of the land so that he could comply with the requirements prescribed by law before a final patent could be issued in his favor what divests the government of title to the land is the issuance of a patent and its subsequent registration with the Register of Deeds.[30]
	GR No. 172196 2011-10-19	ADELAIDA MENESES v. ROSARIO G. VENTUROZO PERALTA, J.
The rule is that the jurisdiction of the Court over appealed cases from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive.[21] Thus, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[22] However, this rule admits exceptions,[23] such as when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court[24] like in this case.
	GR No. 172200 2010-07-06	HEIRS OF REDENTOR COMPLETO v. SGT. AMANDO C. ALBAYDA NACHURA, J.
The issues raised by petitioners essentially delve into factual matters which were already passed upon by the RTC and the CA. Conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case. The fact that the CA adopted the findings of fact of the trial court makes the same binding upon this Court.Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[40] To be sure, findings of fact of lower courts are deemed conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court, save only for clear and exceptional reasons,[41] none of which is present in the case at bar.