This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-10-15 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the issues in this case are factual. "Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in this Court; such factual issues may be considered and resolved only when the findings of facts and the conclusions of the [LA] are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the CA."[11] It is apparent from the arguments of the petitioners that they are calling for the Court to re-evaluate the evidence presented by the parties. "Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact."[12] The petitioners are, therefore, raising questions of facts beyond the ambit of the Court's review. | |||||
|
2014-03-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The spouses Capco, on the other hand, aside from their bare allegation that respondent Rufino is an heir of the true owners thereof, presented nothing to support their claim. While they submitted receipts evidencing their payments of the realty taxes of their house and the camarin standing in the subject property, the same only militates against their claim since the latest receipts indicate Teodora as the owner of the land. Moreover, the spouses Capco's attempt to attack the title of Teodora is futile. "It has repeatedly been emphasized that when the property is registered under the Torrens system, the registered owner's title to the property is presumed legal and cannot be collaterally attacked, especially in a mere action for unlawful detainer. It has even been held that it does not even matter if the party's title to the property is questionable."[48] | |||||