This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-12-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| claim of title over the said property by assuming the mortgage and possessing the subject property, all this changed when they started paying monthly rentals to the mortgagee bank after the foreclosure of the said property. We find this finding of the courts a quo conclusive on us in this petition for review.[16] A conclusive presumption arises from the fact that, during the tenancy relationship, the petitioner spouses admitted the validity of the title of their landlord. This negated their previous claim of title.[17] If, indeed, they believed in good faith they | |||||
|
2002-03-19 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the two Deeds of Sale were absolutely simulated; hence, null and void.[58] Thus, they did not convey any rights that could ripen into valid titles.[59] Necessarily, the subsequent real estate mortgage constituted by Sulit in favor of respondent was also null and void, because the former was not the owner thereof. There being no valid real estate mortgage, there could also be no valid foreclosure or valid auction sale, either. At bottom, respondent cannot be considered either as a mortgagee or as a purchaser in good faith. This being so, petitioners would be in the same position as they were before they executed the simulated Deed of Sale in favor of Sanchez. They are still the owners of the property.[60] | |||||
|
2002-03-12 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| It bears reiterating, therefore, that it is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion. In the same vein, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule, and this, petitioner has failed to prove.[33] | |||||