This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-07-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Thus, an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal in these instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent.[34] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Guided by the foregoing definitions, the Court is in conformity with the finding of the trial court that an implied resulting trust was created as provided under the first sentence of Article 1448[15] which is sometimes referred to as a purchase money resulting trust, the elements of which are: (a) an actual payment of money, property or services, or an equivalent, constituting valuable consideration; and (b) such consideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust.[16] Here, the petitioners have shown that the two elements are present in the instant case. Luis, Sr. was merely a trustee of Juan Tong and the petitioners in relation to the subject property, and it was Juan Tong who provided the money for the purchase of Lot 998 but the corresponding transfer certificate of title was placed in the name of Luis, Sr. | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| (a) When the question affectsjurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) Matters that are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) Matters whose consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or in serving the interests of justice or avoiding dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) Matters raised in the trial court and are of record having some bearing on the issue submitted that the parties failed to raise or that the lower court ignored; (e) Matters closely related to an error assigned; and (f) Matters upon which the determination of a question properly assigned is dependent.[13] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witness' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by the Supreme Court particularly when the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings.[6] The Court will not alter the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses because of its unique opportunity to observe the manner and demeanor of witnesses while testifying. [7] We find no cogent reason to depart from this rule. | |||||