Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE D. ONTIMARE v. SPS. RENATO AND ROSARIO ELEP

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 182650 2012-02-27	TOMAS K. CHUA v. WESTMONT BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As a general rule, only errors of law are reviewable by the Supreme Court on petitions for review on certiorari.[24] The rule finds more stringent application where the CA upholds the findings of fact of the trial court. In such instance, as in this case, this Court is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined by the lower courts.[25] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.[26]
	GR No. 172203 2011-02-14	DIONISIO LOPEZ Y ABERASTURI v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[10]
	GR No. 189859 2010-10-18	PIO MODESTO v. CARLOS URBINA BRION, J.
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[11]
	GR No. 172690 2010-03-03	HEIRS OF JOSE LIM v. JULIET VILLA LIM NACHURA, J.
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[11]
	GR No. 170790 2009-10-23	ANGELITO COLMENARES v. HAND TRACTOR PARTS QUISUMBING, J.
It is settled that questions of fact cannot be the subject of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The rule finds more stringent application where the Court of Appeals upholds the findings of fact of the trial court. In such instance, as in this case, this Court is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined by the lower courts.[20] This Court has held also that when supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.[21] Needless to stress, under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petition shall raise only questions of law.[22] The reason is that this Court is not a trier of facts, and is not to review and calibrate the evidence on record.[23]
	GR No. 170482 2009-09-04	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. AGUIDA VDA. DE SANTIAGO QUISUMBING, J.
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[13] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR NO. 174830 2009-07-31	ISABELITA VDA. DE DAYAO v. HEIRS OF GAVINO ROBLES QUISUMBING, J.
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. [17]
	GR No. 145545 2008-06-30	PAZ SAMANIEGO-CELADA v. LUCIA D. ABENA QUISUMBING, J.
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[13]
	GR No. 163757 2007-11-23	GORDOLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. REPUBLIC QUISUMBING, J.
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[25] Exception (7) as quoted above is present in this case. In its decision the trial court found that the subject parcels of land were within the alienable and disposable land of the public domain. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals found that petitioner had not been able to prove that the subject parcels of land were indeed alienable and disposable.[26]