This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The resolution of the issue of ownership, however, would entail going into factual matters. Settled is the rule that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[17] Section 1 of Rule 45 states that petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. Doubtless, in the instant case, the issue of whether respondent possesses the subject property as owner, or whether she occupies the same as a lessee, is a question of fact. Thus, as a rule, it is not reviewable. | |||||
|
2014-06-30 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We have no reason to disturb this factual finding of the CA because it is supported by the evidence on record. Spouses Peralta filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which allows only questions of law to be raised. It is a settled rule that questions of fact are not reviewable in this kind of appeal. Under Rule 45, Section 1, "petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth."[32] A question of fact arises when there is "as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when there is a need to calibrate the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation."[33] It is further pointed out that "the determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue, which generally is outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review."[34] | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (k) When the [Court of Appeals] manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[64] | |||||