This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| A petition for review filed under Rule 45 may raise only questions of law. The factual findings by the Court of Appeals, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive and binding on the parties and are no longer reviewable unless the case falls under the recognized exceptions.[75] This court is not a trier of facts and we are not duty bound to re-examine evidence.[76] The existence or non-existence of fraud in an application for free patent depends on a finding of fact insofar as the presence of its requirements. As observed by the Court of Appeals, petitioner Mendoza admitted against his interest when he stated in his Joint Affidavit that respondent "has continuously occupied and cultivated the land."[77] Petitioners cannot also now raise the factual issue on land identity since a change of theory on appeal offends due process and fair play.[78] Unless it can be shown that irregularity tainted the free patent proceedings conducted before the Director of Lands, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed[79] stands. | |||||
|
2015-09-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Petitioners cannot now raise the factual issue on land identity. A change of theory on appeal offends due process and fair play.[145] | |||||
|
2015-08-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| When the deed of sale in favor of respondent was purportedly executed by the parties thereto and notarized on June 6, 2006, it is perfectly obvious that the signatures of the vendors therein, Macario and Felicidad, were forged. They could not have signed the same, because both were by then long deceased: Macario died on February 22, 1981, while Felicidad passed away on September 14, 1997. This makes the June 6, 2006 deed of sale null and void; being so, it is "equivalent to nothing; it produces no civil effect; and it does not create, modify or extinguish a juridical relation."[34] | |||||