Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LINA ABALON LUBOS v. MARITES GALUPO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 171068 2007-09-05	HEIRS OF MARCELINA ARZADON-CRISOLOGO v. AGRIFINA RAÑON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Article 1117 of the Civil Code is instructive: Art. 1117. Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be ordinary or extraordinary. Articles 1134 and 1137 of the Civil Code fix the periods of possession,[29] which provide: Art. 1134. Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years.
	GR NO. 169890 2007-03-12	FELICIANO ESGUERRA v. VIRGINIA TRINIDAD CARPIO MORALES, J.
Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final, conclusive and binding on this Court,[20] which is not a trier of facts,[21] hence, bereft of function under Rule 45 to examine and weigh the probative value of the evidence presented,[22] its jurisdiction being limited only to the review and revision of errors of law.[23] Albeit there are exceptions[24] to this rule, the cases at bar do not fall thereunder, there being no showing that the trial and appellate courts overlooked matters which, if considered, would alter their outcome.
	GR NO. 148971 2006-11-29	ALBERTO GARONG v. PEOPLE VELASCO, JR., J.
Petitioner however charges the CA for departing from the usual course of judicial proceedings in affirming the findings of the trial court.[21] On the contrary, we have consistently held that findings of trial courts are accorded the highest degree of respect, if not finality. Factual findings of the trial court, adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.[22] Moreover, we do not see any departure from the usual course of appellate review the CA weighed the assignments of error made by petitioner against the trial court's findings.
	GR NO. 153476 2006-09-27	HKO AH PAO v. LAURENCE TING AZCUNA, J.
As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when adopted and affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal to this Court.[21] This Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the CA.[22] Absent any showing that some facts of certain weight and substance were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case, the Court, as in this case, will uphold the findings of the RTC and the CA.
	GR NO. 150128 2006-08-31	ANGELES v. PNR GARCIA, J.
Whether or not an agency has been created is a question to be determined by the fact that one represents and is acting for another. The appellate court, and before it, the trial court, had peremptorily determined that Lizette, with respect to the withdrawal of the scrap in question, was acting for Romualdez. And with the view we take of this case, there were substantial pieces of evidence adduced to support this determination. The desired reversal urged by the petitioner cannot, accordingly, be granted. For, factual findings of the trial court, adopted and confirmed by the CA, are, as a rule, final and conclusive and may not be disturbed on appeal.[6] So it must be here.
	GR No. 151821 2004-04-14	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ALS MANAGEMENT PANGANIBAN, J.
It is readily apparent that petitioner is raising issues of fact that have been ruled upon by the RTC and sustained by the CA. The factual findings of lower courts are generally binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal, especially when both sets of findings are the same.[32] Nevertheless, this rule has certain exceptions,[33] as when those findings are not supported by the evidence on record.
	GR No. 137909 2003-12-11	FIDELA DEL CASTILLO VDA. DE MISTICA v. SPS. BERNARDINO NAGUIAT AND MARIA PAULINA GERONA-NAGUIAT PANGANIBAN, J.
Both the trial and the appellate courts arrived at this finding. Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact by the CA are generally binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal, especially when they are the same as those of the trial court.[16] Petitioner has not given us sufficient reasons to depart from this rule.
	GR No. 154017 2003-12-08	DESAMPARADOS M. SOLIVA v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF MARCELO M. VILLALBA PANGANIBAN, J.
It is readily apparent that petitioner is raising issues of fact that have amply been ruled upon by the appellate court. The CA's findings of fact are generally binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal -- especially when, as in this case, they are the same as those of the trial court.[8] Petitioner has failed to show sufficient reason for us to depart from this rule. Accordingly, we shall review only questions of law that have been distinctly set forth.[9]
	GR No. 146341 2003-08-07	AQUILA LARENA JOINED BY HER HUSBAND v. FRUCTUOSA MAPILI PANGANIBAN, J.
Unfortunately for petitioners, prescription cannot be taken in their favor because, as we mentioned earlier, there is no evidence on record that tacks on the property Petitioner Aquila's date of possession. "Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership by a possessor through the requisite lapse of time. In order to ripen into ownership, possession must be en concepto de dueño, public, peaceful and uninterrupted."[46] Coupled with the court a quo's finding that the claims of purchase were unsubstantiated, petitioners' acts of a possessory character -- acts that might have been merely tolerated by the owner -- did not constitute possession.[47] No matter how long tolerated possession is continued, it does not start the running of the prescriptive period.[48]