This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Considering that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive on this Court,[22] there is no reason to hold that the Casullas's continued possession of the Property gives rise to the presumption of equitable mortgage. | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Thus, to ascertain the correctness of the CA's Decision, there is a need to verify whether in executing the Deed of Relinquishment, Renunciation of Rights and Quitclaim, Comia alienated the 3,000-sqm portion after the grant of the free patent. Although this is a finding of fact generally beyond this Court's jurisdiction,[28] this Court will consider the issue, considering the conflicting factual and legal conclusions of the lower courts. | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| We reiterate our ruling in a line of cases that the jurisdiction of this Court, in cases brought before it from the CA, is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law.[10] Factual findings of courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive on this Court except if unsupported by the evidence on record.[11] There is a question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts; or when there is a need to calibrate the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to one another and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[12] | |||||
|
2010-08-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the appellate court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the Court since it is not the Court's function to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again.[19] Nevertheless, in several cases,[20] the Court enumerated the exceptions to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. However, petitioner failed to show that this case falls under any of the exceptions. | |||||
|
2009-12-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Since a complaint for reversion can upset the stability of registered titles through the cancellation of the original title and the others that emanate from it, the State bears a heavy burden of proving the ground for its action.[11] Here, the Republic fails to discharge such burden. For one, it failed to present the original or a certified true copy of LC Map 47 but only its electronic reproduction,[12] which has no probative value.[13] | |||||