Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTRELLA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 156013 2006-07-25	ROBERTO P. DE GUZMAN v. HERNANDO B. PEREZ CORONA, J.
Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which amounts to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.[17] Where it is not shown that the findings complained of are wholly devoid of evidentiary support or that they are patently erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, the findings must be sustained.[18]
	AC. NO. 6086 2005-01-26	NICANOR B. GATMAYTAN v. ATTY. ISIDRO C. ILAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court, in the case of Estrella Real Estate Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[18] has enunciated that in the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand. Consequently, absent a showing that there is grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint, the Court must give credence to the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and the Board of Governors of the IBP that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.
	GR No. 139274 2001-10-23	QUEZON PROVINCE v. ABELIO M. MARTE QUISUMBING, J.
On record, we find that there was no basis for the trial court to declare as one of the issues of the case, the matter concerning the coverage of the subject land under Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136. As shown by petitioners, private respondent admitted in its complaint that the parcel of land it purchased from the Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro was covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136. Nowhere in the comment and memorandum submitted before us does private respondent deny said fact. Petitioners on the other hand, did not dispute said coverage. Hence, the coverage of the land purportedly under Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 was not controverted by the parties. The trial court, therefore, gravely abused its discretion when it declared as an issue, that needed to be resolved in a full-blown trial, the coverage of the land under the so-called Spanish title. This declaration is totally devoid of support in the record.[9]