Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SEGUNDO G. DIMARANAN v. HEIRS OF SPS. HERMOGENES ARAYATA AND FLAVIANA ARAYATA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164985 2014-01-15	FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION v. BAYANIHAN AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION BERSAMIN, J.
finding. Verily, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on the Court when supported by the evidence on record.[11] A debt is liquidated when its existence and amount are determined.[12] Accordingly, an unliquidated claim set up as a counterclaim by a defendant can be set off against the plaintiff's claim from the moment it is liquidated by judgment.
	GR No. 172471 2012-11-12	ANTONIO PERLA v. MIRASOL BARING DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Generally, factual findings of trial courts, when affirmed by the CA, are binding on this Court."[57] However, this rule admits of certain exceptions such as when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures or when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts.[58] As this case falls under these exceptions, the Court is constrained to re-examine the factual findings of the lower courts.
	GR No. 179395 2010-12-15	MAXWELL HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. ERIC UYCHIAOCO YU CARPIO, J.
Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, will not be disturbed by this Court.[10] As a rule, such findings by the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect, and are deemed final and conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[11] The foregoing principle applies to the present controversy.
	GR No. 163610 2010-09-27	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TORING v. HEIRS OF TEODOSIA BOQUILAGA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As a general rule, factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[11] There are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations. surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[12]