Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MENDOZA v. SOLEDAD SALINAS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 156164 2009-09-04	SPS. LEONARDO AND MILAGROS CHUA v. JACINTO G. ANG BRION, J.
First, the petitioners raise a pure question of law involving jurisdiction over criminal complaints for violation of P.D. No. 957. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.[15] As noted earlier, this Court is the undisputed final arbiter of all questions of law.
	GR No. 180986 2008-12-10	NORBERTO ALTRES v. CAMILO G. EMPLEO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court had repeatedly clarified the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.[36] A question of fact, on the other hand, exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[37] When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.[38]
	GR No. 161818 2008-08-20	NEW RURAL BANK OF GUIMBA v. FERMINA S. ABAD PUNO, CJ.
In a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[13] the issues that can be raised are limited to questions of law. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court specifically provides:SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
	GR No. 161037 2008-02-04	NORMA S. FACTOR v. ANTONIO V. MARTEL QUISUMBING, J.
A writ of possession is employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give possession of it to the person entitled under the judgment.[18] It may be issued under the following instances: (1) land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496;[19] (2) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; (3) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135[20] as amended by Act No. 4118;[21] and (4) in execution sales.
	GR NO. 165849 2007-12-10	GILBERT G. GUY v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We remind petitioner Lincoln Continental that what it filed with this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It is a rule in this jurisdiction that in petitions for review under Rule 45, only questions or errors of law may be raised.[21] There is a question of law when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts, or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented. There is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when there is a need to calibrate the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. [22] Obviously, the issue raised by the instant petition for review on certiorari, involves a factual matter, hence, is outside the domain of this Court. However, in the interest of justice and in order to settle this controversy once and for all, a ruling from this Court is imperative.