Lawyerly

GR No. 177616

2014-08-27

HEIRS OF SPS. JOAQUIN MANGUARDIA and SUSANA MANALO v. HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO VALLES and MARTA VALLES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Time and again, this Court has reiterated that it is not a trier of facts. Well entrenched is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court.[56] The Court's "role in a petition under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing or reversing errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court."[57] This rule, however, is not without well defined exceptions. "Findings of fact of the trial court and the CA may be set aside when such findings are not supported by the evidence or where the lower courts' conclusions are based on a misapprehension of facts."[58] Considering the contention of petitioners that misinterpretation of facts was committed, this Court embarked on the task of reviewing the facts of this case.

GR No. 176863

2009-10-30

GREGORIO DESTREZA v. ATTY. MA. GRACIA RIÑOZA-PLAZO

ABAD, J.

But more than plausible evidence was required of Plazo and Alaras. An allegation of fraud with regard to the execution of a notarized deed of absolute sale is a grave allegation. It cannot be declared on mere speculations. In fact, to overcome the presumption of regularity and due execution of a notarized deed, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing otherwise. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption lies on the one contesting the same.[35] Without such evidence, the presumption remains undiminished.[36]

GR No. 176246

2009-02-13

PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CENTRAL SURETY

NACHURA, J.

Malicious prosecution, both in criminal and civil cases, requires the presence of two elements, to wit: (a) malice and (b) absence of probable cause. Moreover, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person; and that it was initiated deliberately, knowing that the charge was false and baseless. Hence, the mere filing of what turns out to be an unsuccessful suit does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.[40] Malice must be proved with clear and convincing evidence, which we find wanting in this case.

GR No. 158384

2008-06-12

JUAN OLIVARES v. ESPERANZA DE LA CRUZ SARMIENTO

CARPIO, J.

As found by the trial court, the essential requisites for a valid contract were present: (1) consent of the parties, as evidenced by their signatures; (2) object certain which is the subject property; and (3) the consideration which is P25,000. Furthermore, the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale is a public document which has the presumption of regularity and whose validity should be upheld absent any clear and convincing evidence to contradict its validity.[19]

GR NO. 173192

2008-04-18

ROSENDO BACALSO v. MAXIMO PADIGOS

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. They are generally regarded as purely advisory in character.[41] The courts may place whatever weight they choose upon and may reject them, if they find them inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable.[42] When faced with conflicting expert opinions, courts give more weight and credence to that which is more complete, thorough, and scientific.[43]

GR No. 164081

2008-04-16

MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILS. CORPORATION v. ROLANDO SIMON

TINGA, J,

Moreover, we find no need for the services of a graphology expert to prove that the signature appearing in the receipt is that of respondent Ajero. As we have previously stated, the burden of proof required in a labor case is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but merely substantial evidence. Furthermore, while a graphology expert could tell whether the signature appearing in the receipt could be that of Ajero, it would still not be enough to dispel the extortion charges, that is the fact that he had demanded upon, and received money from Siena. Finally, it is settled the testimony of a handwriting expert is just an opinion and never conclusive. Courts and tribunals have the discretion whether to accept or overrule an such an expert's opinion.[21]

GR No. 155033

2007-12-19

ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

A resort to judicial processes is not, per se, evidence of ill will upon which a claim for damages may be based.[32]

GR No. 172835

2007-12-13

AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. PENNSWELL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

What is clear from the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals is that the chemical formulation of respondent's products is not known to the general public and is unique only to it. Both courts uniformly ruled that these ingredients are not within the knowledge of the public. Since such factual findings are generally not reviewable by this Court, it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[47] We need not delve into the factual bases of such findings as questions of fact are beyond the pale of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Factual findings of the trial court when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.[48]

GR NO. 171250

2007-07-04

SPS. CARLOS AND EULALIA RAYMUNDO AND SPS. ANGELITO AND JOCELYN BUENAOBRA v. SPS. DOMINADOR AND ROSALIA BANDONG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

An equitable mortgage is one that - although lacking in some formality, forms and words, or other requisites demanded by a statute - nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to charge a real property as security for a debt and contains nothing impossible or contrary to law.[12]

GR No. 156262

2005-07-14

MARIA TUAZON v. HEIRS OF BARTOLOME RAMOS

PANGANIBAN, J.

conclusive on the parties and this Court.[8] Petitioners have not given us sufficient reasons to deviate from this rule.

GR NO. 149756

2005-02-11

MYRNA RAMOS v. SUSANA S. SARAO

PANGANIBAN, J.

On the other hand, an equitable mortgage is a contract that --although lacking the formality, the form or words, or other requisites demanded by a statute -- nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to burden a piece or pieces of real property as security for a debt.[24] The essential requisites of such a contract are as follows: (1) the parties enter into what appears to be a contract of sale, but (2) their intention is to secure an existing debt by way of a mortgage.[25] The nonpayment of the debt when due gives the mortgagee the right to foreclose the mortgage, sell the property, and apply the proceeds of the sale to the satisfaction of the loan obligation.[26]

GR No. 140228

2004-11-19

FRANCISCO MEDINA v. GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals should not have relied on respondent's allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding the sales and the transfer of the titles. Petitioners point out that trial on the merits of the case is still ongoing and respondent is yet to adduce evidence in support of its contention. The same, however, applies to petitioners' cause of action. They only have their own allegations and are yet to prove their claim. And as stated earlier, the only bases from which the propriety of the injunction can be determined are their respective pleadings and documents. What tilt the balance in respondent's favor are the notarized documents and the titles to the properties. The well-settled rule is that a document acknowledged before a notary public enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. To overcome this presumption, there must be presented evidence that is clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.[19] In addition, the titles in the name of respondent, having been registered under the Torrens system, are generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein,[20] and a strong presumption exists that the titles are regularly issued and valid.[21] Therefore, until and unless petitioners show that the documents are indeed spurious and the titles invalid, then the presumptions must prevail at this juncture.

	GR No. 177616 2014-08-27	HEIRS OF SPS. JOAQUIN MANGUARDIA and SUSANA MANALO v. HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO VALLES and MARTA VALLES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Time and again, this Court has reiterated that it is not a trier of facts. Well entrenched is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court.[56] The Court's "role in a petition under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing or reversing errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court."[57] This rule, however, is not without well defined exceptions. "Findings of fact of the trial court and the CA may be set aside when such findings are not supported by the evidence or where the lower courts' conclusions are based on a misapprehension of facts."[58] Considering the contention of petitioners that misinterpretation of facts was committed, this Court embarked on the task of reviewing the facts of this case.
	GR No. 176863 2009-10-30	GREGORIO DESTREZA v. ATTY. MA. GRACIA RIÑOZA-PLAZO ABAD, J.
But more than plausible evidence was required of Plazo and Alaras. An allegation of fraud with regard to the execution of a notarized deed of absolute sale is a grave allegation. It cannot be declared on mere speculations. In fact, to overcome the presumption of regularity and due execution of a notarized deed, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing otherwise. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption lies on the one contesting the same.[35] Without such evidence, the presumption remains undiminished.[36]
	GR No. 176246 2009-02-13	PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CENTRAL SURETY NACHURA, J.
Malicious prosecution, both in criminal and civil cases, requires the presence of two elements, to wit: (a) malice and (b) absence of probable cause. Moreover, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person; and that it was initiated deliberately, knowing that the charge was false and baseless. Hence, the mere filing of what turns out to be an unsuccessful suit does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.[40] Malice must be proved with clear and convincing evidence, which we find wanting in this case.
	GR No. 158384 2008-06-12	JUAN OLIVARES v. ESPERANZA DE LA CRUZ SARMIENTO CARPIO, J.
As found by the trial court, the essential requisites for a valid contract were present: (1) consent of the parties, as evidenced by their signatures; (2) object certain which is the subject property; and (3) the consideration which is P25,000. Furthermore, the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale is a public document which has the presumption of regularity and whose validity should be upheld absent any clear and convincing evidence to contradict its validity.[19]
	GR NO. 173192 2008-04-18	ROSENDO BACALSO v. MAXIMO PADIGOS CARPIO MORALES, J.
Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. They are generally regarded as purely advisory in character.[41] The courts may place whatever weight they choose upon and may reject them, if they find them inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable.[42] When faced with conflicting expert opinions, courts give more weight and credence to that which is more complete, thorough, and scientific.[43]
	GR No. 164081 2008-04-16	MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILS. CORPORATION v. ROLANDO SIMON TINGA, J,
Moreover, we find no need for the services of a graphology expert to prove that the signature appearing in the receipt is that of respondent Ajero. As we have previously stated, the burden of proof required in a labor case is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but merely substantial evidence. Furthermore, while a graphology expert could tell whether the signature appearing in the receipt could be that of Ajero, it would still not be enough to dispel the extortion charges, that is the fact that he had demanded upon, and received money from Siena. Finally, it is settled the testimony of a handwriting expert is just an opinion and never conclusive. Courts and tribunals have the discretion whether to accept or overrule an such an expert's opinion.[21]
	GR No. 155033 2007-12-19	ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A resort to judicial processes is not, per se, evidence of ill will upon which a claim for damages may be based.[32]
	GR No. 172835 2007-12-13	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. PENNSWELL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
What is clear from the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals is that the chemical formulation of respondent's products is not known to the general public and is unique only to it. Both courts uniformly ruled that these ingredients are not within the knowledge of the public. Since such factual findings are generally not reviewable by this Court, it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[47] We need not delve into the factual bases of such findings as questions of fact are beyond the pale of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Factual findings of the trial court when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.[48]
	GR NO. 171250 2007-07-04	SPS. CARLOS AND EULALIA RAYMUNDO AND SPS. ANGELITO AND JOCELYN BUENAOBRA v. SPS. DOMINADOR AND ROSALIA BANDONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An equitable mortgage is one that - although lacking in some formality, forms and words, or other requisites demanded by a statute - nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to charge a real property as security for a debt and contains nothing impossible or contrary to law.[12]
	GR No. 156262 2005-07-14	MARIA TUAZON v. HEIRS OF BARTOLOME RAMOS PANGANIBAN, J.
conclusive on the parties and this Court.[8] Petitioners have not given us sufficient reasons to deviate from this rule.
	GR NO. 149756 2005-02-11	MYRNA RAMOS v. SUSANA S. SARAO PANGANIBAN, J.
On the other hand, an equitable mortgage is a contract that --although lacking the formality, the form or words, or other requisites demanded by a statute -- nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to burden a piece or pieces of real property as security for a debt.[24] The essential requisites of such a contract are as follows: (1) the parties enter into what appears to be a contract of sale, but (2) their intention is to secure an existing debt by way of a mortgage.[25] The nonpayment of the debt when due gives the mortgagee the right to foreclose the mortgage, sell the property, and apply the proceeds of the sale to the satisfaction of the loan obligation.[26]
	GR No. 140228 2004-11-19	FRANCISCO MEDINA v. GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals should not have relied on respondent's allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding the sales and the transfer of the titles. Petitioners point out that trial on the merits of the case is still ongoing and respondent is yet to adduce evidence in support of its contention. The same, however, applies to petitioners' cause of action. They only have their own allegations and are yet to prove their claim. And as stated earlier, the only bases from which the propriety of the injunction can be determined are their respective pleadings and documents. What tilt the balance in respondent's favor are the notarized documents and the titles to the properties. The well-settled rule is that a document acknowledged before a notary public enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. To overcome this presumption, there must be presented evidence that is clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.[19] In addition, the titles in the name of respondent, having been registered under the Torrens system, are generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein,[20] and a strong presumption exists that the titles are regularly issued and valid.[21] Therefore, until and unless petitioners show that the documents are indeed spurious and the titles invalid, then the presumptions must prevail at this juncture.

LEONORA CEBALLOS v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF LATE EMIGDIO MERCADO