Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 191018 2016-01-25	CARLOS BORROMEO v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL BRION, J.
The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has also carved out recognized exceptions[5] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;[6] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;[7] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[8] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[9] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[10] (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 appellant and the appellee;[11] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court's;[12] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[13] (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;[14] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[15] and (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.[16]
	GR No. 182395 2015-10-05	MARITO T. BERNALES v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES BRION, J.
At the outset, we also note that the petitioner only raised questions of fact, which are not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. Under Section 1 of Rule 45, such petition shall only raise questions of law. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and it is not our function to analyze and weigh the evidence that the lower courts have passed upon. Ordinarily, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has carved out recognized exceptions[4] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;[5] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[6] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[7] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[8] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[9] (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 appellant and the appellee;[10] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;[11] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[12] (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;[13] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[14] and (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.[15]
	GR No. 179024 2011-05-30	ESTATE OF PASTOR M. SAMSON v. MERCEDES R. SUSANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The question of whether a tenancy relationship exists is basically a question of fact which, as a general rule, is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.[66] The question of whether there was an implied tenancy and sharing are basically questions of fact and the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Boards a quo are, generally, entitled to respect and nondisturbance, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[67] Such findings of fact may be reviewed by the Court when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures,[68] or if the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.[69]
	GR NO. 130348 2007-09-03	MIGUEL SORIANO v. ANTERO SORIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Of course, this Court may be minded to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, but only in the presence of any of the following circumstances: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;[46] (2) the interference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[47] (3) there is grave abuse of discretion;[48] (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[49] (5) the findings of fact are conflicting;[50] (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;[51] (7) the findings of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;[52] (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;[53] (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;[54] (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case;[55] and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[56]
	GR NO. 152483 2006-07-14	RURAL BANK OF SIATON v. FELIX MACAJILOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
RBSI principally raises questions of fact that have been settled by the court a quo. As a general rule, questions of fact are not covered by a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because it is limited to a review of errors of law committed by the appellate court especially so in the case at bar where the findings of fact of the trial court and Court of Appeals coincide and are, thus, binding on this Court.[8] However, RBSI claims that the instant case falls under recognized exceptions to this general rule because the lower courts' conclusions are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures,[9] and are based on a misapprehension of facts.[10]