Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANICETA RAMIREZ v. CA AND SPS. BENEDICTO AND EVANGELINE RAMOS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 192085 2012-02-22	CARIDAD SEGARRA SAZON v. LETECIA VASQUEZ-MENANCIO SERENO, J.
Factual findings of the trial court are accorded high respect and are generally not disturbed by appellate courts, unless found to be clearly arbitrary or baseless.[36] This Court does not review the factual findings of an appellate court, unless these findings are "mistaken, absurd, speculative, conjectural, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings culled by the trial court of origin."[37]
	GR NO. 156447 2005-04-26	JUAN AGAS v. CARIDAD SABICO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Third. Despite the execution of the said deeds, the respondent remained in possession of the property and continued residing in her house which was constructed thereon. If the agreement between the parties had been one of sale as claimed by the petitioners, it behooved the latter to have immediately taken possession of the subject lot as soon as the respondent had executed the deed of absolute sale on October 3, 1978. The petitioners, however, did no such thing. This circumstance is a badge of the fictitiousness of the deed of absolute sale. Instead, on June 12, 1979, the petitioners asked the respondent to pay a nominal monthly rental of P25.00 to which the respondent did not agree. Even if the respondent had agreed to do so, case law has it that where the vendor remains in physical possession of the land as lessee or otherwise, the contract should be treated as an equitable mortgage.[41]
	GR No. 120706 2000-01-31	RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. CA AND SPS. NESTOR NICOLAS AND ALLEM NICOLAS BELLOSILLO, J.
The Court is also aware of the long settled rule that when the issue is on the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court; however, its factual findings may nonetheless be reversed if by the evidence on record or lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[6] In this respect, the Court is not generally inclined to review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals unless its findings are erroneous, absurd, speculative, conjectural, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings culled by the trial court of origin.[7] This rule of course cannot be unqualifiedly applied to a case where the judge who penned the decision was not the one who heard the case, because not having heard the testimonies himself, the judge would not be in a better position than the appellate courts to make such determination.[8]