This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| An assignment of credit has been defined as an agreement by virtue of which the owner of a credit, known as the assignor, by a legal cause - such as sale, dation in payment or exchange or donation - and without need of the debtor's consent, transfers that credit and its accessory rights to another, known as the assignee, who acquires the power to enforce it to the same extent as the assignor could have enforced it against the debtor.[24] In every case, the obligations between assignor and assignee will depend upon the judicial relation which is the basis of the assignment.[25] An assignment will be construed in accordance with the rules of construction governing contracts generally, the primary object being always to ascertain and carry out the intention of the parties.[26] This intention is to be derived from a consideration of the whole instrument, all parts of which should be given effect, and is to be sought in the words and language employed.[27] | |||||
|
2010-08-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the party who alleges an affirmative defense,[15] or claims that there is subrogation, has the burden of proof to establish the same.[16] DBP failed to prove its claim that APT should be held liable.[17] | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Ordinarily, this Court will not review, much less reverse, the factual findings of the CA, especially where such findings coincide with those of the trial court.[17] The findings of facts of the CA are, as a general rule, conclusive and binding upon this Court, since this Court is not a trier of facts and does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[18] | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It has already been held that the determination of the existence of a breach of contract is a factual matter not usually reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45.[18] We will not review, much less reverse, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals especially where, as in this case, such findings coincide with those of the trial court, since we are not a trier of facts.[19] The established rule is that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the RTC are conclusive and binding on us. We are not wont to review them, save under exceptional circumstances as: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[20] | |||||