This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| On this score, petitioner insists that we must take cognizance of a supervening event that it has already consolidated the property's title in its name, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-432045 (M) and T-432046 (M).[30] While the Court has "ample authority to review and resolve matters not assigned and specified as errors by either of the parties in the appeal if it finds the consideration and determination of the same essential and indispensable in order to arrive at a just decision in the case,"[31] we agree with the respondents that the Court cannot automatically accede to the alleged consolidation, for the matter is essentially a question of fact best left to the determination of the lower court. In Republic v. Malabanan,[32] we held that:[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. | |||||