Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. RODOLFO CAOILI AND IMELDA CAOILI v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 145821 2005-11-29	SPS. ROSAURO OCAMPO v. FIRST METRO LEASING AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that in a petition for review on certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is not the function of this Court to re-examine the evidence submitted by the parties unless the findings of fact of the CA are not supported by evidence on record or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. This Court is limited to the review or revision of errors of law and not to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again.[7]
	GR NO. 140839 2005-05-26	ABELARDO C. RIVAS v. JESUS C. SISON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Nevertheless, while it is true that petitioner was not denied due process, the Court cannot accede to the factual findings made by the MTRCB and affirmed by the CSC. Indeed, in a petition for review on certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is not the function of this Court to re-examine the evidence submitted by the parties. However, the Court may still review factual findings of the lower court if it believes that such findings are not supported by evidence on record or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[4]
	GR NO. 150897 2005-04-11	TURADIO C. DOMINGO v. JOSE C. DOMINGO QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale in the present case is a notarized document. Being a public document, it is prima facie evidence of the facts therein expressed.[24] It has the presumption of regularity in its favor and to contradict all these, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.[25] Petitioner has failed to show that such contradictory evidence exists in this case.
	AM NO. MTJ-04-1524 2005-02-11	ELEMAR G. BOTE v. JUDGE GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO QUISUMBING, J.
That the deed was notarized on March 19, 1986, is further proven by the entry in the notarial register. A notarial register is prima facie evidence of the facts there stated.[20] It has the presumption of regularity and to contradict the veracity of the entry, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.[21] Here, respondent had not been able to successfully assail the veracity of the entry. He contended that it was not in his handwriting, but he himself had declared that his clerk made the entries in the register for him, thus revealing why the entry was not in his handwriting.[22]