This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. Bellate,[123] this court discussed the nature of fraud as follows:[T]he fraud must consist in an intentional omission of facts required by law to be stated in the application or a willful statement of a claim against the truth. It must show some specific acts intended to deceive and deprive another of his [or her] right. The fraud must be actual and extrinsic, not merely constructive or intrinsic; the evidence thereof must be clear, convincing[,] and more than merely preponderant, because the proceedings which are assailed as having been fraudulent are judicial proceedings which by law, are presumed to have been fair and regular.[124] (Emphasis in the original) | |||||
|
2015-09-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Name of Landowner : Reynosa Valte Title No. : OCT-P-10119 Survey No. : Psd-03-024497 (OLT) Location : San Isidro, Lupao NE[172] This court has also held that "once the patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property."[173] | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The rule that questions of fact are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari, as a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law, is not an absolute rule that admits of no exceptions. One notable exception is when the findings of fact of both the trial court and the CA are conflicting, making their review necessary.[5] In the present case, the tribunals below arrived at two conflicting factual findings, albeit with the same conclusion, i.e., dismissal of the complaint for nullity of the loan. Accordingly, we will examine the parties' evidence presented. | |||||