Case Digest: Spouses Andrada vs. Pilhino Sales
G.R. No. 156448 : February 23, 2011
SPS. MOISES and CLEMENCIA ANDRADA, Petitioners, v. PILHINO SALES CORPORATION, represented by its Branch Manager, JOJO S. SAET, Respondent.
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Pilhino sued Jose Andrada, Jr. and his wife, Maxima to recover a sum of money. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment, which came to be implemented against two trucks owned by Jose Andrada, Jr.
However, the Hino truck could not be transferred to Pilhino’s name due to its having been already registered in the name of petitioner Moises Andrada. Pilhino thus instituted an action in the RTC to annul the deed of sale between Jose and Moises.
The RTC dismissed the case for all the respondents in that case, except for the Spouses Moises and Clemencia. This was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pilhino should be held liable for the damages the petitioners sustained from Pilhino’s levy on execution upon the Hino truck.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
CIVIL LAW: Questions of fact
The CA found that Pilhino had acted in good faith in bringing Civil Case No. 21,898-93 to annul the deed of sale involving the Hino truck executed by Jose Andrada, Jr. in favor of Moises Andrada, considering that Pilhino had “believed that the sale in favor of defendants-appellants [had been] resorted to so that Jose Andrada [might] evade his obligations.
Petitioner’s insistence that abuse of rights was not established requires the consideration and review of factual issues. Hence, this appeal cannot succeed, for an appeal by petition for review on certiorari cannot determine factual issues. In the exercise of its power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial. Perforce, the findings of fact by the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court.
SPS. MOISES and CLEMENCIA ANDRADA, Petitioners, v. PILHINO SALES CORPORATION, represented by its Branch Manager, JOJO S. SAET, Respondent.
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Pilhino sued Jose Andrada, Jr. and his wife, Maxima to recover a sum of money. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment, which came to be implemented against two trucks owned by Jose Andrada, Jr.
However, the Hino truck could not be transferred to Pilhino’s name due to its having been already registered in the name of petitioner Moises Andrada. Pilhino thus instituted an action in the RTC to annul the deed of sale between Jose and Moises.
The RTC dismissed the case for all the respondents in that case, except for the Spouses Moises and Clemencia. This was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pilhino should be held liable for the damages the petitioners sustained from Pilhino’s levy on execution upon the Hino truck.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
CIVIL LAW: Questions of fact
The CA found that Pilhino had acted in good faith in bringing Civil Case No. 21,898-93 to annul the deed of sale involving the Hino truck executed by Jose Andrada, Jr. in favor of Moises Andrada, considering that Pilhino had “believed that the sale in favor of defendants-appellants [had been] resorted to so that Jose Andrada [might] evade his obligations.
Petitioner’s insistence that abuse of rights was not established requires the consideration and review of factual issues. Hence, this appeal cannot succeed, for an appeal by petition for review on certiorari cannot determine factual issues. In the exercise of its power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial. Perforce, the findings of fact by the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court.
DENIED.
