This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In any event, we reiterate the well-entrenched rule that the factual findings of trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[31] We are mandated to accord great weight to the findings of the RTC, particularly as regards its assessment of the credibility of witnesses[32] since it is the trial court judge who is in a position to observe and examine the witnesses first hand.[33] Even after a careful and independent scrutiny of the records, we find no cogent reason to depart from the rulings of the courts below.[34] | |||||
|
2005-09-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The CA further stated that the inadequacy of the purchase price does not per se support the conclusion that the contract was a loan, or that the property was not at all sold. Citing Abapo v. Court of Appeals[43] and Article 1355 of the Civil Code, the CA ruled that such inadequacy of price is not sufficient to set aside the sale, unless it is grossly inadequate or purely shocking to the conscience. Moreover, except for his own self-serving testimony, Virgilio did not submit any other testimony to refute the said sale. | |||||
|
2000-08-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which are not shown to be manifestly erroneous or unsupported by the record, deserve great respect. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, factual findings of trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive and, generally, will not be reviewed on appeal.[16] To begin with, this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to examine and determine the weight of the evidence supporting the assailed decision. In Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (275 SCRA 621 [1997]), the Court held that factual findings of the | |||||