Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HONORIO C. BULOS v. KOJI YASUMA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173559 2013-01-07	LETICIA DIONA v. SONNY A. BALANGUE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Neither can the grant of the 5% monthly interest be considered subsumed by petitioner's general prayer for "[o]ther reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises x x x."[42] To repeat, the court's grant of relief is limited only to what has been prayed for in the Complaint or related thereto, supported by evidence, and covered by the party's cause of action.[43] Besides, even assuming that the awarded 5% monthly or 60% per annum interest was properly alleged and proven during trial, the same remains unconscionably excessive and ought to be equitably reduced in accordance with applicable jurisprudence. In Bulos, Jr. v. Yasuma,[44] this Court held: In the case of Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, citing the cases of Medel v. Court of Appeals, Garcia v. Court of Appeals, Spouses Bautista v. Pilar Development Corporation and the recent case of Spouses Solangon v. Salazar, this Court considered the 3% interest per month or 36% interest per annum as excessive and unconscionable. Thereby, the Court, in the said case, equitably reduced the rate of interest to 1% interest per month or 12% interest per annum. (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 160453 2012-11-12	REPUBLIC v. ARCADIO IVAN A. SANTOS III BERSAMIN, J.
Although it is well settled that the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded the highest degree of respect, and generally will not be disturbed on appeal, with such findings being binding and conclusive on the Court,[23] the Court has consistently recognized exceptions to this rule, including the following, to wit: (a) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (h) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by respondent; and (j) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[24]
	GR No. 164195 2009-12-04	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The Court likewise equitably reduced, in Bulos, Jr. v. Yasuma,[68] the excessive and unconscionable interest rate of 48% per annum to 12% per annum.[69]
	GR No. 178306 2008-12-18	FRANCISCO R. NUNGA v. FRANCISCO N. NUNGA III CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Otherwise stated, the afore-quoted provision categorically provides that only citizens of the Philippines can own and hold, directly or indirectly, the capital stock of a rural bank, subject only to the exception also clearly stated in the same provision. This was the very interpretation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7353 made by this Court in Bulos, Jr. v. Yasuma,[40] on the basis of which the Court disqualified therein respondent Yasuma, a foreigner, from owning capital stock in the Rural Bank of Parañaque. In the instant case, it is undisputed that when Gonzalez executed the Contract to Sell and the Deed of Absolute Sale covering his RBA shares of stock in favor of Francisco Jr., the latter was already a naturalized citizen of the United States of America. Consequently, the acquisition by Francisco Jr. of the disputed RBA shares by virtue of the foregoing contracts is a violation of the clear and mandatory dictum of Republic Act No. 7353, which the Court cannot countenance.
	GR No. 156310 2008-07-31	XERXES A. ABA DIAN O v. SPS. JESUS AND LOLITA MARTIR NACHURA, J.
It is well settled that the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded the highest degree of respect, and generally will not be disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and conclusive on the Court. Further, it is not the Court's function under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. The jurisdiction of the Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing only errors of law. Unless the case falls under the recognized exceptions, the rule shall not be disturbed.[25]