This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-02-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Siguan v. Lim,[79] this Court held that in an action to rescind under Art. 1381, the following requisites must exist: The action to rescind contracts in fraud of creditors is known as accion pauliana. For this action to prosper, the following requisites must be present: (1) the plaintiff asking for rescission has a credit prior to the alienation, although demandable later; (2) the debtor has made a subsequent contract conveying a patrimonial benefit to a third person; (3) the creditor has no other legal remedy to satisfy his claim; (4) the act being impugned is fraudulent; (5) the third person who received the property conveyed, if it is by onerous title, has been an accomplice in the fraud. (Emphasis Ours; citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| While the main issue in this case involves a question of fact, which ordinarily cannot be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45, we find reason to review the factual findings made by the NLRC and the CA considering that they are at variance with each other.[8] | |||||
|
2004-12-16 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| In any event, the issues of (1) whether Atty. Vega was negligent in handling the Rustica account and Civil Case No. 5260, and (2) whether BAGCO had a part in the collection of some unpaid accounts and is entitled to service charges are factual and are, therefore, precluded review by this Court. It is not the Court's function to examine and weigh all over again the evidence presented in the proceedings below.[30] Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to reviewing errors of law and not questions of facts.[31] | |||||
|
2004-09-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As to the trial court's award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses, the same should be deleted for lack of basis. Aside from the allegations in the complaint, no evidence was presented in support of said claims. The trial court made these awards in the dispositive portion of its decision without stating any justification therefor in the ratio decidendi. Their deletion is therefore proper.[48] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The above rule, however, is not iron-clad. In Siguan v. Lim,[25] we enumerated the instances when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are not deemed conclusive, to wit: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, 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 facts are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admission 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 brief are not disputed by the respondent; and when (10) the findings of fact are premised on the supposed evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. | |||||
|
2000-11-29 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In light of the conflicting findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we reviewed the factual findings of the appellate court.[11] | |||||