This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Seeking recourse from this court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 bears significantly on the manner by which this court shall treat findings of fact and evidentiary matters. As a general rule, it becomes improper for this court to consider factual issues: the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this court. "The reason behind the rule is that [this] Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its duty to review, evaluate, and weigh the probative value of the evidence adduced before the lower courts."[28] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The issue of damages is a factual one. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall only pertain to questions of law.[116] It is not the duty of this court to re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the lower courts.[117] Furthermore, unless the petition clearly shows that there is grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this court.[118] In Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr.:[119] | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
|||||
| It is hornbook doctrine that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court. This Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective sets of evidence of the parties. Factual findings of the RTC, herein sitting as a SAC, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[36] The Court shall analyze or weigh the evidence again only in the exercise of discretion and for compelling reasons, because it is not our duty to review, evaluate, and weigh the probative value of the evidence adduced before the lower courts.[37] Here, we find that none of these exceptional circumstances obtains. Outright, respondent denied having signed the LTPA.[38] Both the SAC and CA gave no probative weight to the LTPA. No proof was adduced that respondent and the FBs ever entered into a VLT scheme; neither is there evidence that the rentals given to respondent by the FBs constituted payment for the subject property. As correctly pointed out by the SAC and the CA, it would indeed be highly contrary to ordinary logic that respondent would voluntarily enter into the LTPA and, subsequently, deny the same, deprive himself of the fruits of his own land, file a case before the court and as a result, painfully undertake the rigorous, expensive and tedious process of litigation. Based on the foregoing, we find no cogent reason to deviate from the common finding of both the SAC and the CA giving no probative value to the LTPA. Necessarily, the amount of P10,000.00 per hectare as just compensation for the subject property must be discarded. | |||||