Villanueva vs CA 294 SCRA

Facts:
Manuel Go filed a BP 22 and civil damages against the petitioner Villanueva. The check
supposedly represented payment of loans previously obtained by petitioner from private
respondent as capital for the formers mining and fertilizer business.
RTC of Cebu ruled against Villanueva. The latter appealed to CA but affirmed the decision of
RTC with partial medication. Petitioner filed appeal to SC raising same issues.
ISSUE: Whether the SC can still admit evidence?
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the petition should be denied.
Time and again it has been ruled that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from
the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed
by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive.
Court is not dutybound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered
in the proceedings below. The rule, however, admits of the following exceptions: (1) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave abuse
of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of
facts; (5) when the findings are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of
both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to
those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence on record.

METROBANK VS Spouses Cristobal

FACTS :
Spouses Cristobal obtained loan to petitioner bank. As security, spouses Cristobal
mortgaged their two (2) real estate. Spouses Cristobal failed to pay after demands resulted
the extrajudicial foreclosure of said real property. The bank demanded the immediate
vacate of spouses Cristobal but said demand was unheeded. Thus, bank filed a petition for
writ of possession but RTC denied the same. RTC ruled that the 12 mos redemption period
has not yet expired , thus, bank needs to post bond in an amount equivalent to the use of
the property for the period of 12 mos. The Bank failed to adduce evidence that it posted
said bond as required by Section 7 ACT 3135.
In appeal, CA also denied the petition for certiorari on the ground that bank did not
consolidate its ownership over the subject parcels of land. Moreover, even if the 12-month

redemption period had already expired and the need for a bond already dispensed with, possession
could not yet be given to petitioner until the ownership is consolidated and a new transfer certificate
of title issued in its name.
ISSUES:
a. Whether consolidation of title is necessary before possession may be automatically given to
petitioner?
b. Whether the issue needs to be resolved is question of law or of fact?
HELD:
Yes. After the consolidation of title in the buyers name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the
property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right.
T]his Court has differentiated a question of law from a question of fact. A question of law arises
when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact
when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law,
the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the
given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of
fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether
the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in
which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.
Here, no question of law is involved, for it is clear that petitioner has the right to possession once it
has established that ownership has been consolidated in its name. Consolidation is essentially
factual in nature, as it requires the presentation of evidence. Thus, the case was ordered to be
remanded to RTC for the reception of evidence.

FAR EAST MARBLE INC vs CA

FACTS:
BPI filed a complaint for foreclosure of chattel mortgage. Far East Marble executed promissory notes.
When the obligation was due and demandable. BPI sent demand to pay but the demand remained
unheeded. Thus, this complaint .The complaint was dismissed by the RTC on the ground of lack of cause
of action and on prescription. RTC ruled that BPI failed to alleged that the cause of action had not been
interrupted, thus, failed to alleged ultimate fact of the case.BPI appealed to CA and assailed the decision
of the RTC. BPI contended that the action did not prescribed as it sent demand letter thus, it not just
interrupted but renewed. CA remanded the case to the court a quo for further proceedings on the
grounds that the complaint for foreclosure of chattel mortgage with replevin had not prescribed and
that, there being a cause of action, further proceedings, including the resolution of the motion for
summary judgment may be pursued
ISSUE : Whether BPI failed to establish cause of action after it failed to allege that the has not been
prescribed?
HELD: RTC committed an error.The trial courts finding that BPIs claims due to prescription, can no
longer prosper, is inextricably connected with, and underpinned by, its other conclusion that BPIs
allegation that it made repeated requests and demands for payment is not sufficient to state a cause of
action. Moreover, in its questioned Order (Rollo, p. 88) dated June 1, 1987, the trial court held that:
Apart from the fact that the complaint failed to allege that the period of prescription was interrupted, the
phrase repeated requests and demands for payment is vague and incomplete as to establish in the
minds of the defendant, or to enable the Court to draw a conclusion, that demands or acknowledgment
[of debt] were made that could have interrupted the period of prescription.
Seemingly, therefore, the trial court believed that the interruption of the prescriptive period to institute
an action is an ULTIMATE FACT which had to be expressly and indispensably pleaded by BPI in its
complaint, and that failure to so allege such circumstance is fatal to BPIs cause of action.
We believe and hold otherwise.
Section 3 of Rule 6 states that a complaint is a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the
plaintiffs cause or causes of action. Further elaborating thereon, Section 1 of Rule 8 declares that every
pleading, including, of course, a complaint, shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts . . . omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
Ultimate facts are the essential and substantial facts which either form the basis of the primary right
and duty or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant (Tantuico, Jr. vs.
Republic of the Phils., et al., 204 SCRA 428 [1991]), while evidentiary facts are those which tend to
prove or establish said ultimate facts.
Basically, a cause of action consists of three elements, namely: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) the
correlative obligation of the defendant; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said
legal right (Nabus vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 193 SCRA 732 [1991]); Rebollido vs. Court of Appeals, et
al., 170 SCRA 800 [1989]). These elements are manifest in BPIs complaint, particularly when it was
therein alleged that: (1) for valuable consideration, BPI granted several loans, evidenced by promissory
notes, and extended credit facilities in the form of trust receipts to Far East (photocopies of said notes
and receipts were duly attached to the Complaint); (2) said promissory notes and trust receipts had
matured; and (3) despite repeated requests and demands for payment thereof, Far East had failed and
refused to pay.

Salita vs Magtolis GR 106429

FACTS :
Erwin Salita filed for annulment of marriage with Joselita Salita on the ground of psychological incapacity.
The petition for annulment was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on 7 January 1992.
Therein it is alleged that [s]ometime in 1987, petitioner came to realize that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their marriage, which
incapacity existed at the time of the marriage although the same became manifest only thereafter.2
Dissatisfied with the allegation in the petition, Joselita moved for a bill of particulars which the trial court
granted. Erwin Espinosa filed his bill of particular but Joselita was not contented and assailed that the bill
of particular he filed was not the statement of ultimate facts but a legal conclusion. Trial court upheld the
sufficiency of the allegation in the bill of particular Thus, Joselita filed special civil action for certiorari.
ISSUE :Whether the bill of particular filed by Erwin Espinosa sufficiently alleged the ultimate facts in his
complaint for annulment of marriage?
HELD : Yes. A complaint only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause or causes
of action. Ultimate facts has been defined as those facts which the expected evidence will support. As
stated by private respondent, [t]he term does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of
evidence by which these material elements are to be established. It refers to the facts which the
evidence on the trial will prove, and not the evidence which will be required to prove the existence of
those facts.