This case has been cited 18 times or more.
|
2016-02-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court finds the evidence presented sufficient to prove probable cause; the issuing court and the CA thus patently erred in quashing the search warrants. Where the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record, the same cannot bind this Court.[33] | |||||
|
2013-04-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As the petitioners cannot be considered buyers in good faith, they cannot lean on the indefeasibility of their TCT in view of the doctrine that the defense of indefeasibility of a torrens title does not extend to transferees who take the certificate of title in bad faith.[13] The Court cannot ascribe good faith to those who have not shown any diligence in protecting their rights.[14] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property. In an action for quieting of title, the plaintiffs must show not only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over the subject real property, but that they have a valid title to it.[36] The court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and the other claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and to make the claimant, who has no rights to said immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce the improvements he may desire, as well as use, and even abuse the property as he deems fit.[37] | |||||
|
2010-09-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to secure "... an adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be forever afterward free from any danger of hostile claim."[23] In such action, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and to make the claimant, who has no rights to said immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce the improvements he may desire, as well as use, and even abuse the property as he deems fit.[24] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As a rule, this Court is not a trier of facts. However, there are well- recognized exceptions to this rule, one of which is when certain relevant facts were overlooked by the lower court, which facts, if properly appreciated, would justify a different conclusion from the one reached in the assailed decision.[10] Reviewing the records, we find that the lower courts misappreciated the evidence in this case. | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property.[15] Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest in real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.[16] In such action, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and the other claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and to make the claimant, who has no rights to said immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce the improvements he may desire, as well as use, and even abuse the property as he deems fit.[17] | |||||
|
2008-07-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In resolving the question of tenancy, it must be borne in mind that whether a person is an agricultural tenant or not is basically a question of fact.[29] The general rule is, a question of fact is beyond the office of this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in which only questions of law may be raised.[30] It is settled doctrine that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[31] Such factual findings shall not be disturbed, unless: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[32] | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The determination of whether Segundo's signature was forged is a question of fact which calls for a review of the evidence presented by the parties. While such determination is usually not within the Court's domain, we will delve into factual issues in this case due to the conflicting findings of the Court of Appeals and of the trial court.[21] | |||||
|
2008-01-29 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It should be noted that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law. This Court is not a trier of facts. The findings of fact of the CA are binding and conclusive on this Court. However, the application of this rule is not absolute and admits of certain exceptions. For instance, factual findings of the CA may be reviewed by this Court when the findings of fact of the RTC and the CA are conflicting.[11] In this case, the RTC held that the action had already prescribed; the CA ruled otherwise. Thus, although the petition now before us involves a question of fact, that is, whether or not the action for judicial foreclosure of mortgage has already prescribed, we may still rule on the same. | |||||
|
2007-10-05 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As the petitioners cannot be considered buyers in good faith, they cannot rely upon the indefeasibility of their TCTs in view of the doctrine that the defense of indefeasibility of a torrens title does not extend to transferees who take the certificate of title in bad faith.[10] | |||||
|
2007-09-11 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| shall not be disturbed, unless: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; (7) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[16] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| An action for quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. As clarified by this Court in Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[21]:Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to secure "... an adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be forever afterward free from any danger or hostile claim. In an action for quieting of title, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, "... not only to place things in their proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best (citation omitted). Such remedy may be availed of under the circumstances enumerated in the Civil Code: | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The resolution of the issue on private petitioners' eligibility under the CARP calls for a review of the evidence on record to determine whether or not the conclusion of the Court of Appeals has factual basis. At the outset, it should be noted that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, as it is not a trier of facts. It is a settled doctrine that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon this Court, not to be disturbed unless: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; (7) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[12] | |||||
|
2005-10-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| ". . . (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties; (7) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record."[9] | |||||
|
2005-08-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The determination of whether Teodulfo is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue which is generally outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review.[18] If for this matter alone, the petition should be dismissed because the remedy of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contemplates only questions of law.[19] Indeed, this Court is not a trier of facts,[20] and the factual findings of the CA are binding and conclusive upon this Court, unless:(1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; (7) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[21] | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| and fair price at the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property.[10] The determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue which generally is outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review. An exception is when the Court of Appeals failed to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[11] The instant case is covered by this exception to the general rule. As found by the Court of Appeals and not refuted by private respondent, petitioners purchased the subject land in 1964 from Mariano Lising.[12] Civil Case No. Q-12918 was commenced sometime in 1969. The Court of Appeals overlooked the fact that the purchase of the land took place prior to the institution of Civil Case No. Q-12918. In other words, the sale to petitioners was made before Pura Kalaw Ledesma claimed the lot. Petitioners could reasonably rely on Mariano Lising's Certificate of Title which at the time of purchase was still free from any third party claim. Hence, considering the circumstances of this case, we conclude that petitioners acquired the land subject of this dispute in good faith and for value. The final question now is: could we consider petitioners builders in good faith? We note that this is the first time that petitioners have raised this issue. As a general rule, this could not be done. Fair play, justice, and due process dictate that parties should not raise | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110207, 258 SCRA 651, 658 (1996), we distinguished between the two types of questions: there is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. Being a question of fact, it is beyond the office of this court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, where only questions of law may be raised.[13] Although there are exceptions,[14] petitioners did not show that this is one of them. Additionally, petitioners, in raising the above issue, is in effect questioning the factual findings of the DARAB, contrary to the doctrine that findings of fact by administrative agencies are generally accorded great respect, if not finality by the courts because of the special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction.[15] It must be stressed at this point that the DARAB has the jurisdiction on all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of agrarian laws, including PD 27.[16] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, factual findings of the trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and are not reviewed by this Court.[16] However, the rule admits of several exceptions, one of which is when the appellate court overlooked or misapprehended certain facts which when properly considered would lead to a different result.[17] | |||||