This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-12-18 |
|||||
| We held in Vera-Cruz v. Calderon[25] that: As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. Although it has long been settled that findings of fact are conclusive upon this Court, there are exceptional circumstances which would require us to review findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, to wit: | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The final question to be resolved is whether petitioners were buyers in good faith. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in that same property, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person's claim.[26] | |||||
|
2005-08-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Even under the present Civil Code, however, the Deed of Sale is not void. It is well-settled that contracts alienating conjugal real property without the wife's consent are merely voidable under the Civil Code that is, binding on the parties unless annulled by a competent court and not void ab initio.[19] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Even under the present Civil Code, however, the Deed of Sale is not void. It is well-settled that contracts alienating conjugal real property without the wife's consent are merely voidable under the Civil Code - that is, binding on the parties unless annulled by a competent court - and not void ab initio.[19] | |||||
|
2004-09-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is a well-entrenched rule that the trial judge's, in this case, the investigating justice's findings of facts and assessment of the credibility of witnesses are accorded finality. However, such rule is not without exceptions. Such findings may be reviewed if there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[7] Among the circumstances which had been held to be justifiable reasons for the Court to reexamine the trial court or appellate court's findings of facts are, when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and when the finding of fact of the trial court or appellate court is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by evidence on record.[8] | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| attesting to the number of ACMs tested, the number found to be defective; and "whether the reprogrammed software has been tested and found to have complied with the requirements under Republic Act No. 8436."[50] In its "Partial Compliance and Manifestation" dated December 29, 2003, Comelec informed the Court that 1,991 ACMs had already been delivered to the Commission as of that date. It further certified that it had already paid the supplier the sum of P849,167,697.41, which | |||||