Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARY ANN DEHEZA-INAMARGA v. CELENIA C. ALANO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 190901 2014-11-12	AMADA COTONER-ZACARIAS v. SPS. ALFREDO REVILLA AND HEIRS OF PAZ REVILLA LEONEN, J.
This court has held that the "question of forgery is one of fact."[87] Well-settled is the rule that "[f]actual findings of the lower courts are entitled great weight and respect on appeal, and in fact accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence on the record."[88]
	GR No. 187769 2014-06-04	ALVIN PATRIMONIO v. NAPOLEON GUTIERREZ BRION, J.
True, the petitioner had issued several pre-signed checks to Gutierrez, one of which fell into the hands of Marasigan. This act, however, does not constitute sufficient authority to borrow money in his behalf and neither should it be construed as petitioner's grant of consent to the parties' loan agreement. Without any evidence to prove Gutierrez' authority, the petitioner's signature in the check cannot be taken, even remotely, as sufficient authorization, much less, consent to the contract of loan. Without the consent given by one party in a purported contract, such contract could not have been perfected; there simply was no contract to speak of.[15]
	GR No. 149193 2011-04-04	RICARDO B. BANGAYAN v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION SERENO, J.
In Deheza-Inamarga v. Alano, [105] the Court ruled that: The question of forgery is one of fact. It is well-settled that when supported by substantial evidence or borne out by the records, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.