Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. PEDRO T. CASIMIRO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 181071 2010-03-15	LADISLAO ESPINOSA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
As to whether the fractures suffered by the private complainant resulted from a single blow or a product of multiple hackings is a question of fact best left to the judgment of the trial court. It is a well-settled principle that factual findings of the trial court--especially if already affirmed by an appellate court--are binding and conclusive upon this Court, save only for certain compelling reasons which are absent in this case.[14] Hence, the Court refuses to disturb the facts, and defers to the determination of the Regional Trial Court and of the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 161042 2009-08-24	REPUBLIC v. AGRIPINA DELA RAGA CARPIO, J.
When the RTC found Dela Raga's evidence sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of OCT No. 49266, the RTC had the duty to issue the order of reconstitution. In Republic v. Casimiro,[13] the Court held: When a court, after hearing of a petition for reconstitution, finds that the evidence presented is sufficient and proper to grant the same, x x x it becomes the duty of the court to issue the order of reconstitution. This duty is mandatory. The law does not give the court discretion to deny the reconstitution if all the basic requirements have been complied with. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 162787 2008-06-13	REPUBLIC VS. ALONTE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court emphasizes its ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. Casimiro,[10] to wit: The findings of fact of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, cannot be disturbed by this Court, since -
	GR No. 173525 2008-03-28	REPUBLIC v. GERTRUDES B. VERZOSA TINGA, J,
Among the sources enumerated in Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 26, the owner's duplicate of the transfer certificate of title is given primacy because such document is, by all accounts, an exact reproduction of the original copy of the transfer certificate of title. It is required, however, that the owner's duplicate certificate itself, and not a mere photocopy thereof, be presented to the court. This is to preclude any question as to the genuineness and authenticity of the owner's duplicate certificate and bar the possibility of reconstitution based on a fraudulent or forged owner's duplicate certificate.[9]