Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO TAYCO v. HEIRS OF CONCEPCION TAYCO-FLORES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 203786 2013-10-23	AQUILES RIOSA v. TABACO LA SUERTE CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
The Court agrees with the finding of the RTC that there was no perfected contract of sale. It is a hornbook doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.[16]
	GR No. 170454 2012-10-11	CECILIA T. MANESE v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
The last issue raised by petitioners questions a factual finding of the Court of Appeals. Under Section 1, Rule 45, providing for appeals by certiorari before the Supreme Court, it is clearly enunciated that only questions of law may be set forth.[36] The Court may resolve questions of fact only in exceptional cases,[37] which do not apply to this case.
	GR No. 173857 2012-03-21	LEONCIA MANUEL v. LEONOR SARMIENTO PERALTA, J.
Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, providing for appeals by certiorari before the Supreme Court, it is clearly enunciated that only questions of law may be set forth.[18] The Court may resolve questions of fact only in exceptional cases[19] as follows: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[20]
	GR No. 169628 2012-03-14	MANUEL A. LUMAYOG v. SPS. LEONARD PITCOCK AND CORAZON PITCOCK PERALTA, J.
Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, providing for appeals by certiorari before the Supreme Court, it is clearly enunciated that only questions of law may be set forth.[19] The question regarding respondent's tenancy status is factual in nature, which is not proper in a petition for review, where only questions of law may be entertained.[20] The Court may resolve questions of fact only in exceptional cases,[21] which is not present here. The Court upholds the finding of the Court of Appeals that petitioner failed to present any evidence to show that a tenancy relationship existed between petitioner and respondents Spouses Pitcock. Jeremias v. Estate of the late Irene P. Mariano[22] held: Claims that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the claimant to a security of tenure.
	GR No. 180784 2012-02-15	INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. ASIAN TERMINALS PERALTA, J.
Under Section 1, Rule 45, providing for appeals by certiorari before the Supreme Court, it is clearly enunciated that only questions of law may be set forth.[23] The Court may resolve questions of fact only when the case falls under the following exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[24]
	GR No. 193188 2011-08-10	PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD VELASCO JR., J.
Indeed, "it is a hornbook doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying."[61] In People v. Lusabio, Jr., this Court held: All in all, we find the evidence of the prosecution to be more credible than that adduced by accused-appellant. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.[62] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)