This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, trial courts are reminded of their duty to carefully scrutinize the records of the case in determining compliance with the requirements concerning Petitions for Reconstitution of a lost or destroyed Original Certificate of Title (OCT). Extra precaution must be taken "lest they become unwitting accomplices in the reconstitution of questionable titles instead of being instruments in promoting the stability of our land registration system."[1] | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Union Bank raises three new issues that require a factual determination that is not within the province of this Court.[8] These questions can be brought to and resolved by the RTC as it is the proper avenue in which to raise factual issues and to present evidence in support of these claims. | |||||
|
2011-12-07 |
TOSINO v. SPS. ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. Heirs of Julia Ramos, [48] the Court summed up the rules governing the power of review of the Court: Ordinarily, this Court will not review, much less reverse, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, especially where such findings coincide with those of the trial court. The findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, conclusive and binding upon this Court, since this Court is not a trier of facts and does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case. | |||||