Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CENTRAL BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. AURORA P. CASTRO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 172843 2014-09-24	ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR v. JOHN S. UMALE LEONEN, J.
Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised.[51] There is a question of law "when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain [set] of facts."[52] The test is "whether the appellate court can determine the issue-raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence."[53] Meanwhile, there is a question of fact when there is "doubt... as to the truth or falsehood of facts."[54] The question must involve the examination of probative value of the evidence presented.
	GR NO. 152164 2007-11-23	ADELFA DEMAFELIS v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In the case of Towne & City Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[20] the Court said that there is a question of fact when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts, while there is a question of law when such doubt or difference refers to what the law is on a certain state of facts.[21] The identity of the subject land is a factual finding supported by evidence, hence, cannot be disturbed in this petition. We are bound by this factual finding of the appellate court, and cannot review again the credibility of witnesses and calibrate the probative value of the evidence on record.[22]
	GR NO. 146721 2006-09-15	MAURA PASCUAL v. FAJARDO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In ordering petitioner to account for and turn over the rents to respondents and to pay them damages. Obviously, the above issues being raised by petitioner are factual in nature, the determination of which involves a review and evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties during the trial. We have consistently held that this Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to examine the evidence all over again.[6] Basic is the rule that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as in this case, only questions of law shall be entertained since factual issues are beyond the province of this Court. Such petition will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor.[7] Petitioner, however, utterly failed to show any of such reasons. Likewise, we have ruled that where, as here, the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the same are binding and conclusive upon this Court and, generally, will not be disturbed on appeal.[8] Our pronouncement in Ocampo v. Ocampo is relevant, thus: