This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Here, SMC/Ramitex assailed the validity of Oliveros' title as part of its counterclaim in an action to declare SMC/Ramitex's title a nullity. A counterclaim is essentially a complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and stands on the same footing as an independent action.[87] Thus, Ramitex's counterclaim can be considered a direct attack on Oliveros' title. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Notably, the errors cited by petitioners are factual in nature. Although the instant case is a petition for review under Rule 45 which, as a general rule, is limited to reviewing errors of law, findings of fact being conclusive as a matter of general principle, however, considering the conflict between the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals, there is a need to review the factual issues as an exception to the general rule.[30] | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners persistently question the validity of the transfer of ownership to Alvarez. They insist that Alvarez failed to establish any right over the property since the Deed of Absolute Sale was not inscribed on TCT No. 41698. Interestingly, petitioners debunked their own argument when they themselves claimed in their Answer with Counter-claim that they derived their right to occupy the property from a lease agreement with, first, the Magdalena Estate, and thereafter, Alvarez herself.[12] More importantly, the fact that the sale was not annotated or inscribed on TCT No. 41698 does not make it any less valid. A contract of sale has the force of law between the contracting parties and they are expected to abide, in good faith, by their respective contractual commitments. Article 1358 of the Civil Code which requires the embodiment of certain contracts in a public instrument, is only for convenience; and registration of the instrument only adversely affects third parties, and non-compliance therewith does not adversely affect the validity of the contract or the contractual rights and obligations of the parties thereunder.[13] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, this Court is not a trier of facts, and unless there are excepting circumstances, it does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[23] Factual matters are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.[24] In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. As held in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[25] factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive[26] on the parties and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[27] Absent any palpable error or arbitrariness, the findings of fact of the lower court are conclusive. On this ground alone, the appeal warrants a dismissal. | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the records disclose that the realty taxes for the years 1991-1995, inclusive, were paid by petitioners only on October 4, 1995, three (3) years after the instant controversy arose, thereby putting in doubt their alleged ownership of the subject premises since July 3, 1989. A belated tax declaration has been held to be indicative of an absence of a real claim of ownership over the subject land prior to the declaration.[20] Petitioners' attempt to explain this three-year hiatus as a mere "oversight" is, at best, a lame and unconvincing excuse. It is also significant to note that the alleged deed of sale was executed only on June 22, 1990. | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Lot 2344-C was sold by Simplicio Santiago to Mariano Santiago and Belen Sanchez. The document of sale evidencing the transaction is duly notarized and, as such, is considered a public document and enjoys the presumption of validity as to its authenticity and due execution. This legal presumption was not overcome by petitioners.[34] Other than their allegation that the deed of sale was a forgery,[35] no other evidence was presented to substantiate their claim. Hence, the presumption of validity of the deed of sale, ceding Lot 2344-C to Mariano Santiago and Belen Marcelo, prevails. | |||||