Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
408
1/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
THIRD DIVISION.
409
409
2/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
410
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f101fa04152bf03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
411
4/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
412
5/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
413
6/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
party when the other party has a property interest in the subject
matter of the contract.
Id., at p. 64.
414
414
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f101fa04152bf03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
415
8/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
Id., at p. 83.
416
9/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
10
417
10/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
Rollo, p. 114.
12
Id., at p. 61.
418
418
11/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
FOR
RECONVEYANCE
WITH
DAMAGES
CANNOT
BE
SUPPORTED
WITH
UNENFORCEABLE DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS
THE BILIHAN NG LUPA DATED [17 AUGUST
1979] AND [9 JANUARY 1981].
VI. THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT FINDING THAT
RESPONDENTS
[SPOUSES
LUMBAOS]
COMPLAINT
FOR
RECONVEYANCE
IS
DISMISSABLE (SIC) FOR NON COMPLIANCE
OF THE MANDATE OF [P.D. NO.] 1508, AS
AMENDED BY Republic Act No. 7160. VII. THE
APPELLATE
COURT
COMMITTED
A
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT FINDING THAT
RESPONDENTS [SPOUSES LUMBAO] SHOULD
BE HELD LIABLE FOR PETITIONERS CLAIM
FOR DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY[]S FEES.
Petitioners ask this Court to scrutinize the evidence
presented in this case, because they claim that the factual
findings of the trial court and the appellate court are
conflicting. They allege that the findings of fact by the trial
court revealed that petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo did not
witness the execution of the documents known as Bilihan
ng Lupa hence, this finding runs counter to the conclusion
made by the appellate court. And even assuming that they
were witnesses to the aforesaid documents, still,
respondents Spouses Lumbao were
419
419
12/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
420
13/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
311, 322.
14
Recognized exceptions to this rule are: (1) when the findings are
421
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f101fa04152bf03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
14/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
_______________
ment is based on misapprehension of facts (5) when the finding of facts
are conflicting (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellee and the appellant (7) when the findings
are contrary to the trial court (8) when the findings are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based (9) when the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondent (10) when the findings of fact
are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion [Langkaan Realty
Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 139437, 8
December 2000, 347 SCRA 542 Nokom v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 390 Phil. 1228, 1243 336
SCRA
97,
110
(2000)
Guidelines
on
the
Katarungang
Pambarangay
Conciliation
422
15/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
423
16/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
36, 5051.
424
424
17/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
ATTY. CHIU:
Q. Being. . . you are one of the witnesses of this document?
[I]s it not?
_______________
19
425
No, sir.
20
I dont remember.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f101fa04152bf03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
18/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
21
Atillo III v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119053, 23 January 1997, 266
Id., at p. 605.
23
Rollo, p. 55.
426
426
19/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
25
26
427
20/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
Barcenas v. Tomas, G.R. No. 150321, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 593,
610611.
428
428
21/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
Heirs of the Late Spouses Aurelio and Esperanza Balite v. Lim, G.R.
429
22/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
430
23/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
Art. 1311. Contracts take effect only between the parties, their
assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising
from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation
or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the
property he received from the decedent.
33
431
24/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
432
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f101fa04152bf03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
25/26
8/9/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME519
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001566f101fa04152bf03003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
26/26