This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-12-09 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that actual or compensatory damages must be proved and proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A party is entitled only up to such compensation for the pecuniary loss that he has duly proven.[47] It cannot be presumed.[48] Absent proof of the amount of actual damages sustained, the Court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof.[49] | |||||
|
2005-11-25 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Generally, factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[6] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, while Narcisa testified during cross-examination that she bought the subject property from People's Homesite Housing Corporation with her own funds,[17] she, however admitted in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale that the property was her conjugal share with her first husband, Patricio, Sr.[18] A verbal assertion that she bought the land with her own funds is inadmissible to qualify the terms of a written agreement under the parole evidence rule.[19] The so-called parole evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at or before the execution of the parties' written agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.[20] | |||||