This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Primarily, only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable by this Court in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[61] This Court is not a trier of facts and it is beyond its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[62] Besides, this Court adheres to the long standing doctrine that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the parties and this Court.[63] Nonetheless, this Court has, at times, allowed exceptions thereto, to wit: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, we stress that petitioners raised not only questions of law but also questions of fact in their Petition for Review.[14] It cannot be gainsaid that fraud is a question of fact which must be alleged and proved at the level of the lower court.[15] This, petitioners miserably failed to do. Fraud cannot be presumed and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.[16] Petitioners' allegation of fraud was evidenced only by Atty. Emiliano Rabina's uncorroborated testimony. Without any reliable evidence apart from such self-serving and bare allegations, it was not accorded much weight by the Provincial Adjudicator, the DARAB, and the Court of Appeals. The eschewal of the Provincial Adjudicator on this point is succinct:The claim [of] [therein] petitioner Emiliano Rabina that the subject landholding was not really owned by the Rabina family but by the Quitoriano family and that there was false representation by [private] respondent Aglibot that the land is owned by the Rabina family[;] hence, he sold the subject landholding to [private respondent] Aglibot could not be admitted by the Board. The Board could not accept the claim of false representation by Emiliano Rabina. It is hard to imagine that Emiliano Rabina who is a government prosecutor could be misled by his tenant, [private] respondent Aglibot. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that Fiscal Emiliano Rabina could not identify the boundaries of his properties.[17] It is thus beyond this Court's jurisdiction to review the factual finding of the Provincial Adjudicator, DARAB and the Court of Appeals that no fraud or misrepresentation attended the execution of the Deed of Absolute Transfer. Whether the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by an adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing, whether certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side, whether inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight, all these are issues of fact which may not be passed upon in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[18] The Court is not a trier of facts.[19] It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence.[20] The jurisdiction of this Court over cases brought to it is limited to the review and rectification of errors allegedly committed by the lower courts.[21] The recognized exceptions are not here present.[22] Hence, the general rule holds true in the present Petition. | |||||
|
2007-12-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is obvious that petitioner wants this Court to revisit the factual findings of the lower courts. Well-established is the doctrine that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Court. We would like to stress that this Court is not a trier of facts and may not re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties. Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court.[26] | |||||