Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PAZ S. LIM FOR HERSELF v. VICTORIA K. CHAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 164787 2006-01-31	MARLENE CRISOSTOMO v. FLORITO M. GARCIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case of Santos, et al. v. Aranzanso,[27] this Court has held that the question of prescription of the action involves the ascertainment of factual matters such as the date when the period to bring the action commenced to run. In Lim v. Chan,[28] this Court has again decreed that prescription is a factual matter when it held that without conducting trial on the merits, the trial court cannot peremptorily find the existence of estoppel, laches, fraud or prescription of actions as these matters require presentation of evidence and determination of facts.
	GR No. 139791 2003-12-12	MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. EDDY NG KOK WEI SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On petitioner's claim that it did not incur delay, suffice it to say that this is a factual issue. Time and again, we have ruled that "the factual findings of the trial court are given weight when supported by substantial evidence and carries more weight when affirmed by the Court of Appeals."[7] Whether or not petitioner incurred delay and thus, liable to pay damages as a result thereof, are indeed factual questions.
	GR No. 125857 2002-03-20	GUILLERMO ARCE v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While the general rule is that factual findings of the trial court when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are not to be disturbed by this Court, however, "when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when an inference made by the appellate court from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; when there is a misappreciation of facts; when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence or are contradicted by evidence on record,"[4] the said findings may be disregarded by this Court.