This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Whether the crime of falsification of private document was committed in Jagna, Bohol or in Cebu City, is a question of fact. Indeed, in the exercise of its power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and, subject to certain exceptions, it does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties during trial.[26] In certain exceptional cases, however, the Court may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues, viz:(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court clearly states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law. In the exercise of its power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and, subject to certain exceptions,[43] it does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties during trial,[44] One of these exceptions is when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court. After all, findings of fact of the trial court and the CA may be set aside when such findings are not supported by the evidence or where the lower courts' conclusions are based on a misapprehension of facts.[45] | |||||
|
2015-04-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Claravall v. Lim,[44] the Court explained:Article 1606 is intended to cover suits where the seller claims that the real intention was a loan with equitable mortgage but decides otherwise. The seller, however, must entertain a good faith belief that the contract is an equitable mortgage. In Felicen, Sr., et al. v. Orias, et al., cited by petitioner, the Court explained: | |||||