Tichangco v Enriquez; GR No. 150629; 30 Jun 2004; 433 SCRA 325

FACTS:
Petitioners assailed the 08 Aug 2001 decision and the 29 Oct 2002 resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming that there were no legal grounds to initiate proceedings to nullify original certificate of title no. 820 and 7477 and the subsequent titles derived therefrom Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 128240 to 128249, inclusive, and TCT No. 128279 all covering parcels of land in Tondo, Manila registered in the names of private respondents.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the CA complied with Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.

HELD:
YES. There is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement when a collegiate appellate court, after deliberation, decides to deny a motion; states that the questions raised are factual or have already been passed upon; or cites some other legal basis. The CA decision contains the necessary antecedents to warrant its conclusions, the appellate court cannot be said to have withheld “any specific finding of facts.” What the law insists on is that a decision state the “essential ultimate facts.”

Tags: , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *