Lawyerly

GR No. 183448

2014-06-30

SPS. DOMINADOR PERALTA AND OFELIA PERALTA v. HEIRS OF BERNARDINA ABALON

SERENO, C.J.

We have no reason to disturb this factual finding of the CA because it is supported by the evidence on record. Spouses Peralta filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which allows only questions of law to be raised. It is a settled rule that questions of fact are not reviewable in this kind of appeal. Under Rule 45, Section 1, "petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth."[32] A question of fact arises when there is "as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when there is a need to calibrate the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation."[33] It is further pointed out that "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."[34]

GR No. 176425

2013-06-05

HEIRS OF MANUEL UY EK LIONG v. MAURICIA MEER CASTILLO

PEREZ, J.

Absent a showing that the RTC's ruling on the foregoing issues was reversed and set aside, we find that the CA reversibly erred in ruling on the validity of the Agreement which respondents executed not only with petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Manuel, but also with Atty. Zepeda. Since it is generally accepted that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger,[43] the rule is settled that a court must first acquire jurisdiction over a party either through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance for the latter to be bound by a court decision.[44] The fact that Atty. Zepeda was not properly impleaded in the suit and given a chance to present his side of the controversy before the RTC should have dissuaded the CA from invalidating the Agreement and holding that attorney's fees should, instead, be computed on a quantum meruit basis. Admittedly, Article 1491 (5)[45] of the Civil Code prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of their profession. The CA lost sight of the fact, however, that the prohibition applies only during the pendency of the suit[46] and generally does not cover contracts for contingent fees where the transfer takes effect only after the finality of a favorable judgment.[47]

GR No. 175542 & 183205

2013-06-05

GREEN ACRES HOLDINGS v. VICTORIA P. CABRAL

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Since they were not impleaded as parties and given the opportunity to participate in Civil Case No. Q-28580, the final judgment in said case cannot bind BPI Family and the spouses Chan. The effect of the said judgment cannot be extended to BPI Family and the spouses Chan by simply issuing an alias writ of execution against them. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution issued pursuant thereto.[36] (Emphasis supplied.) It is beyond dispute that Green Acres was not made a party in the DARAB case. Consequently, the January 17, 2001 DARAB decision cannot bind Green Acres. Likewise, the binding effect of the DARAB decision cannot be extended to Green Acres by the mere issuance of a writ of execution against it. No one shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution and demolition issued pursuant thereto.[37]

GR No. 142676

2011-06-06

EMERITA MUÑOZ v. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Since they were not impleaded as parties and given the opportunity to participate in Civil Case No. Q-28580, the final judgment in said case cannot bind BPI Family and the spouses Chan. The effect of the said judgment cannot be extended to BPI Family and the spouses Chan by simply issuing an alias writ of execution against them. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution issued pursuant thereto. [45]

GR No. 156286

2008-08-13

MARITA C. BERNALDO v. OMBUDSMAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

To be sure, when the lower court or theadministrative tribunal lower court/tribunal fails to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion is likewise an accepted exception to the prescription under Rule 45.[20]

GR NO. 157434

2006-09-19

SPS. CLARO AND NIDA BAUTISTA v. BERLINDA F. SILVA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Whether or not petitioners are buyers for value in good faith is a question of fact not cognizable by us in a petition for review.[31] We resolve only questions of law; we do not try facts nor examine testimonial or documentary evidence on record. We leave these to the trial and appellate courts to whose findings and conclusions we accord great weight and respect, especially when their findings concur.[32] We may have at times reversed their findings and conclusions but we resort to this only under exceptional circumstances as when it is shown that said courts failed to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[33] No such exceptional circumstance obtains in the present case for we find the conclusions of the RTC and CA supported by the established facts and applicable law. However, we do not fully subscribe to some of their views on why petitioners cannot be considered in good faith, as we will discuss below.

GR NO. 157696-97

2006-02-09

MARICALUM MINING CORPORATION v. ARTURO D. BRION IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

[15] Orquiola v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 323, 332 (2002), citing Matuguina Integrated Wood Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98310, 24 October 1996, 263 SCRA 490, 505.

GR NO. 161733

2005-10-11

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARNULFO A. SEBASTIAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

If petitioner Mayor is not impleaded as a party-respondent in the CA, he cannot be compelled to abide by and comply with its decision, as the same would not be binding on him. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court.[35] Ergo, res inter alios judicatae nullum aliis praejudicrium facint.[36] A person who was not impleaded in the complaint cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein, for no man shall be affected by any proceeding in which he is a stranger.[37]

GR NO. 143254

2005-08-18

SIGAYA v. DIOMER MAYUGA

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]

GR NO. 152230

2005-08-09

JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION v. MUNICIPALITY OF PASIG

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The expropriating authority is burdened to make known its definite and valid offer to all the owners of the property. However, it has a right to rely on what appears in the certificate of title covering the land to be expropriated. Hence, it is required to make its offer only to the registered owners of the property. After all, it is well-settled that persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what appears on its face.[58]

GR No. 141145

2004-11-12

REPUBLIC v. WILSON P. ORFINADA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Indeed, a Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of ownership of the land referred to therein, and a strong presumption exists that a Torrens title was regularly issued and valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any informacion possessoria, of other title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the Torrens title. Moreover, persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what appears on its face.[11]

GR Nos. 112449-50

2000-07-31

PEOPLE v. MARCELINO SAN JUAN Y SALAZAR

QUISUMBING, J.

as a head teacher. Suddenly a man, whom she identified in open court as appellant, repeatedly tried to lasso her neck with a piece of abaca rope. She tried to evade and as a result, fell to the ground, suffering bruises as a result.[12] Appellant then grabbed her, twisted her neck, and pointed a knife at her. She was then brought to a nearby vacant lot, where she was ordered to bend over, face down to the ground, and give him all her money and jewelry. She complied at knifepoint, with appellant all the while asking her all sorts of questions about her occupation and her family.[13] Appellant then shook her hand and asked her to accept him as a "friend."[14] She was then made to take the longer, circular way home. Upon arriving home, Angela sought the assistance of her neighbor and prosecution witness, Antonio Borbon. The latter accompanied her to the police station where she gave her sworn statement, a few minutes ahead of Gina, private complainant in Criminal Case No.

	GR No. 183448 2014-06-30	SPS. DOMINADOR PERALTA AND OFELIA PERALTA v. HEIRS OF BERNARDINA ABALON SERENO, C.J.
We have no reason to disturb this factual finding of the CA because it is supported by the evidence on record. Spouses Peralta filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which allows only questions of law to be raised. It is a settled rule that questions of fact are not reviewable in this kind of appeal. Under Rule 45, Section 1, "petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth."[32] A question of fact arises when there is "as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when there is a need to calibrate the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation."[33] It is further pointed out that "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."[34]
	GR No. 176425 2013-06-05	HEIRS OF MANUEL UY EK LIONG v. MAURICIA MEER CASTILLO PEREZ, J.
Absent a showing that the RTC's ruling on the foregoing issues was reversed and set aside, we find that the CA reversibly erred in ruling on the validity of the Agreement which respondents executed not only with petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Manuel, but also with Atty. Zepeda. Since it is generally accepted that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger,[43] the rule is settled that a court must first acquire jurisdiction over a party either through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance for the latter to be bound by a court decision.[44] The fact that Atty. Zepeda was not properly impleaded in the suit and given a chance to present his side of the controversy before the RTC should have dissuaded the CA from invalidating the Agreement and holding that attorney's fees should, instead, be computed on a quantum meruit basis. Admittedly, Article 1491 (5)[45] of the Civil Code prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of their profession. The CA lost sight of the fact, however, that the prohibition applies only during the pendency of the suit[46] and generally does not cover contracts for contingent fees where the transfer takes effect only after the finality of a favorable judgment.[47]
	GR No. 175542 & 183205 2013-06-05	GREEN ACRES HOLDINGS v. VICTORIA P. CABRAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Since they were not impleaded as parties and given the opportunity to participate in Civil Case No. Q-28580, the final judgment in said case cannot bind BPI Family and the spouses Chan. The effect of the said judgment cannot be extended to BPI Family and the spouses Chan by simply issuing an alias writ of execution against them. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution issued pursuant thereto.[36] (Emphasis supplied.) It is beyond dispute that Green Acres was not made a party in the DARAB case. Consequently, the January 17, 2001 DARAB decision cannot bind Green Acres. Likewise, the binding effect of the DARAB decision cannot be extended to Green Acres by the mere issuance of a writ of execution against it. No one shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution and demolition issued pursuant thereto.[37]
	GR No. 142676 2011-06-06	EMERITA MUÑOZ v. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Since they were not impleaded as parties and given the opportunity to participate in Civil Case No. Q-28580, the final judgment in said case cannot bind BPI Family and the spouses Chan. The effect of the said judgment cannot be extended to BPI Family and the spouses Chan by simply issuing an alias writ of execution against them. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution issued pursuant thereto. [45]
	GR No. 156286 2008-08-13	MARITA C. BERNALDO v. OMBUDSMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To be sure, when the lower court or theadministrative tribunal lower court/tribunal fails to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion is likewise an accepted exception to the prescription under Rule 45.[20]
	GR NO. 157434 2006-09-19	SPS. CLARO AND NIDA BAUTISTA v. BERLINDA F. SILVA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Whether or not petitioners are buyers for value in good faith is a question of fact not cognizable by us in a petition for review.[31] We resolve only questions of law; we do not try facts nor examine testimonial or documentary evidence on record. We leave these to the trial and appellate courts to whose findings and conclusions we accord great weight and respect, especially when their findings concur.[32] We may have at times reversed their findings and conclusions but we resort to this only under exceptional circumstances as when it is shown that said courts failed to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[33] No such exceptional circumstance obtains in the present case for we find the conclusions of the RTC and CA supported by the established facts and applicable law. However, we do not fully subscribe to some of their views on why petitioners cannot be considered in good faith, as we will discuss below.
	GR NO. 157696-97 2006-02-09	MARICALUM MINING CORPORATION v. ARTURO D. BRION IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
[15] Orquiola v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 323, 332 (2002), citing Matuguina Integrated Wood Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98310, 24 October 1996, 263 SCRA 490, 505.
	GR NO. 161733 2005-10-11	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARNULFO A. SEBASTIAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
If petitioner Mayor is not impleaded as a party-respondent in the CA, he cannot be compelled to abide by and comply with its decision, as the same would not be binding on him. No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court.[35] Ergo, res inter alios judicatae nullum aliis praejudicrium facint.[36] A person who was not impleaded in the complaint cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein, for no man shall be affected by any proceeding in which he is a stranger.[37]
	GR NO. 143254 2005-08-18	SIGAYA v. DIOMER MAYUGA 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]
	GR NO. 152230 2005-08-09	JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION v. MUNICIPALITY OF PASIG CALLEJO, SR., J.
The expropriating authority is burdened to make known its definite and valid offer to all the owners of the property. However, it has a right to rely on what appears in the certificate of title covering the land to be expropriated. Hence, it is required to make its offer only to the registered owners of the property. After all, it is well-settled that persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what appears on its face.[58]
	GR No. 141145 2004-11-12	REPUBLIC v. WILSON P. ORFINADA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Indeed, a Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of ownership of the land referred to therein, and a strong presumption exists that a Torrens title was regularly issued and valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any informacion possessoria, of other title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the Torrens title. Moreover, persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what appears on its face.[11]
	GR Nos. 112449-50 2000-07-31	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO SAN JUAN Y SALAZAR QUISUMBING, J.
as a head teacher. Suddenly a man, whom she identified in open court as appellant, repeatedly tried to lasso her neck with a piece of abaca rope. She tried to evade and as a result, fell to the ground, suffering bruises as a result.[12] Appellant then grabbed her, twisted her neck, and pointed a knife at her. She was then brought to a nearby vacant lot, where she was ordered to bend over, face down to the ground, and give him all her money and jewelry. She complied at knifepoint, with appellant all the while asking her all sorts of questions about her occupation and her family.[13] Appellant then shook her hand and asked her to accept him as a "friend."[14] She was then made to take the longer, circular way home. Upon arriving home, Angela sought the assistance of her neighbor and prosecution witness, Antonio Borbon. The latter accompanied her to the police station where she gave her sworn statement, a few minutes ahead of Gina, private complainant in Criminal Case No.

VICTOR ORQUIOLA v. CA