Lawyerly

GR No. 187256

2011-02-23

CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA v. MAYOR ENRILO VILLAS

VELASCO JR., J.

On the other hand, direct recourse to this Court has been allowed for petitions filed under Rule 45 when only questions of law are raised, as in this case. Thus, the Court ruled in Barcenas v. Tomas:[13]

GR No. 176358

2008-06-17

BIENVENIDO LIBRES v. SPS. RODRIGO DELOS SANTOS AND MARTINA OLBA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Notarial documents executed with all the legal requisites under the safeguard of a notarial certificate is evidence of a high character. To overcome its recitals, it is incumbent upon the party challenging it to prove his claim with clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence.[20] A notarial document, guaranteed by public attestation in accordance with the law, must be sustained in full force and effect so long as he who impugns it does not present strong, complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaws or defects provided by law.[21] Without that sort of evidence, the presumption of regularity, the evidentiary weight conferred upon such public document with respect to its execution, as well as the statements and the authenticity of the signatures thereon, stand.[22]

GR No. 149177

2007-11-23

KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA v. MINORU KITAMURA

NACHURA, J.

The Court also finds no merit in respondent's contention that petitioner Hasegawa is only authorized to verify and certify, on behalf of Nippon, the certiorari petition filed with the CA and not the instant petition. True, the Authorization[35] dated September 4, 2000, which is attached to the second certiorari petition and which is also attached to the instant petition for review, is limited in scope its wordings indicate that Hasegawa is given the authority to sign for and act on behalf of the company only in the petition filed with the appellate court, and that authority cannot extend to the instant petition for review.[36] In a plethora of cases, however, this Court has liberally applied the Rules or even suspended its application whenever a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have been made.[37] Given that petitioners herein sufficiently explained their misgivings on this point and appended to their Reply[38] an updated Authorization[39] for Hasegawa to act on behalf of the company in the instant petition, the Court finds the same as sufficient compliance with the Rules.

GR NO. 169356

2007-08-28

CARMEN FANGONIL - HERRERA v. TOMAS FANGONIL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, this Court is not a trier of facts, and unless there are excepting circumstances, it does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[23] Factual matters are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.[24] In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. As held in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[25] factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive[26] on the parties and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[27] Absent any palpable error or arbitrariness, the findings of fact of the lower court are conclusive. On this ground alone, the appeal warrants a dismissal.

GR No. 163745

2007-08-24

FERNANDO GO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Finally, we cannot accept petitioner's explanation that it was by mere inadvertence that he failed to attach the certified true copies of the DOJ resolutions and the trial court order. We have ruled that the requirement of providing appellate courts with certified true copies of the judgments or final orders that are the subjects of review is necessary to aid them in resolving whether or not to give due course to petitions.[20] Hence, this requirement cannot be perfunctorily ignored, much less violated.[21]

GR No. 153791

2007-08-24

GO KE CHONG v. MARIANO M. CHAN

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Thus, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA), the Sandiganbayan, the RTC or similar courts, may be appealed to this Court, which appeal must involve only questions of law and not of fact.[24]

GR NO. 171048

2007-07-31

RUDY A. PALECPEC v. CORAZON C. DAVIS IN HER CAPACITY AS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

PER CURIAM

But when is the Court faced with a question of law? We have differentiated a question of law from a question of fact, thus, "[t]here is a question of law when doubts or differences arise as to what law pertains to a certain state of facts, and a question of fact when the doubt pertains to the truth or falsity of alleged facts."[25] A question of fact arises when "there is need for a calibration of the evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses and the existence and the relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation."[26]

GR NO. 161304

2007-07-27

SPS. ARTURO CONDES AND NORA CONDES v. CA

NACHURA, J.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. The rule does not specify the precise documents, pleadings, or parts of the records that should be appended to the petition other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. These documents and pleadings are generally the ones needed by the reviewing courts to decide whether to give due course to the petition.[18] The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner.[19] Thereafter, the CA will review the petition and determine whether additional pleadings, documents or orders should have been attached thereto.

GR NO. 169129

2007-03-28

SPS. VIRGILIO F. SANTOS v. SPS. JOSE LUMBAO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is noteworthy that at the time of the execution of the documents denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa," the entire property owned by Maria, the mother of Rita, was not yet divided among her and her co-heirs and so the description of the entire estate is the only description that can be placed in the "Bilihan ng Lupa, dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981" because the exact metes and bounds of the subject property sold to respondents Spouses Lumbao could not be possibly determined at that time. Nevertheless, that does not make the contract of sale between Rita and respondents Spouses Lumbao invalid because both the law and jurisprudence have categorically held that even while an estate remains undivided, co-owners have each full ownership of their respective aliquots or undivided shares and may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage them.[28] The co-owner, however, has no right to sell or alienate a specific or determinate part of the thing owned in common, because such right over the thing is represented by an aliquot or ideal portion without any physical division. In any case, the mere fact that the deed purports to transfer a concrete portion does not per se render the sale void. The sale is valid, but only with respect to the aliquot share of the selling co-owner. Furthermore, the sale is subject to the results of the partition upon the termination of the co-ownership.[29]

GR NO. 160741

2007-03-22

HERMINIA CANDO v. SPS. AURORA OLAZO AND CLAUDIO OLAZO

TINGA, J.

There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.[12]

GR No. 157399

2005-11-17

PEOPLE v. JOSE TING LAN UY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The argument is puerile. It bears stressing that the prosecution presented as witness Atty. Lamberto P. Melencio who saw appellant at the hospital to show him the prepared statement and to verify from him the truth of its contents.[36] Atty. Melencio testified that he asked appellant to go over the document before affixing his signature thereto.[37] He also inquired whether or not appellant was coerced or intimidated by anybody when the statement was taken.[38] Appellant denied that he was coerced or intimidated,[39] affirmed the contents of the document as a true reflection of his statements,[40] and signed the same.[41] It need not be overemphasized that the sworn statement is a duly notarized document which has in its favor the presumption of regularity and, thus, it can be contradicted only by clear and convincing evidence. Without that sort of evidence, the presumption of regularity, the evidentiary weight conferred upon such public document with respect to its execution, as well as the statements and the authenticity of the signatures thereon, stand.[42]

	GR No. 187256 2011-02-23	CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA v. MAYOR ENRILO VILLAS VELASCO JR., J.
On the other hand, direct recourse to this Court has been allowed for petitions filed under Rule 45 when only questions of law are raised, as in this case. Thus, the Court ruled in Barcenas v. Tomas:[13]
	GR No. 176358 2008-06-17	BIENVENIDO LIBRES v. SPS. RODRIGO DELOS SANTOS AND MARTINA OLBA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Notarial documents executed with all the legal requisites under the safeguard of a notarial certificate is evidence of a high character. To overcome its recitals, it is incumbent upon the party challenging it to prove his claim with clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence.[20] A notarial document, guaranteed by public attestation in accordance with the law, must be sustained in full force and effect so long as he who impugns it does not present strong, complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaws or defects provided by law.[21] Without that sort of evidence, the presumption of regularity, the evidentiary weight conferred upon such public document with respect to its execution, as well as the statements and the authenticity of the signatures thereon, stand.[22]
	GR No. 149177 2007-11-23	KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA v. MINORU KITAMURA NACHURA, J.
The Court also finds no merit in respondent's contention that petitioner Hasegawa is only authorized to verify and certify, on behalf of Nippon, the certiorari petition filed with the CA and not the instant petition. True, the Authorization[35] dated September 4, 2000, which is attached to the second certiorari petition and which is also attached to the instant petition for review, is limited in scope its wordings indicate that Hasegawa is given the authority to sign for and act on behalf of the company only in the petition filed with the appellate court, and that authority cannot extend to the instant petition for review.[36] In a plethora of cases, however, this Court has liberally applied the Rules or even suspended its application whenever a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have been made.[37] Given that petitioners herein sufficiently explained their misgivings on this point and appended to their Reply[38] an updated Authorization[39] for Hasegawa to act on behalf of the company in the instant petition, the Court finds the same as sufficient compliance with the Rules.
	GR NO. 169356 2007-08-28	CARMEN FANGONIL - HERRERA v. TOMAS FANGONIL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, this Court is not a trier of facts, and unless there are excepting circumstances, it does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[23] Factual matters are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.[24] In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. As held in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[25] factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive[26] on the parties and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[27] Absent any palpable error or arbitrariness, the findings of fact of the lower court are conclusive. On this ground alone, the appeal warrants a dismissal.
	GR No. 163745 2007-08-24	FERNANDO GO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, we cannot accept petitioner's explanation that it was by mere inadvertence that he failed to attach the certified true copies of the DOJ resolutions and the trial court order. We have ruled that the requirement of providing appellate courts with certified true copies of the judgments or final orders that are the subjects of review is necessary to aid them in resolving whether or not to give due course to petitions.[20] Hence, this requirement cannot be perfunctorily ignored, much less violated.[21]
	GR No. 153791 2007-08-24	GO KE CHONG v. MARIANO M. CHAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA), the Sandiganbayan, the RTC or similar courts, may be appealed to this Court, which appeal must involve only questions of law and not of fact.[24]
	GR NO. 171048 2007-07-31	RUDY A. PALECPEC v. CORAZON C. DAVIS IN HER CAPACITY AS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PER CURIAM
But when is the Court faced with a question of law? We have differentiated a question of law from a question of fact, thus, "[t]here is a question of law when doubts or differences arise as to what law pertains to a certain state of facts, and a question of fact when the doubt pertains to the truth or falsity of alleged facts."[25] A question of fact arises when "there is need for a calibration of the evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses and the existence and the relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation."[26]
	GR NO. 161304 2007-07-27	SPS. ARTURO CONDES AND NORA CONDES v. CA NACHURA, J.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. The rule does not specify the precise documents, pleadings, or parts of the records that should be appended to the petition other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. These documents and pleadings are generally the ones needed by the reviewing courts to decide whether to give due course to the petition.[18] The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner.[19] Thereafter, the CA will review the petition and determine whether additional pleadings, documents or orders should have been attached thereto.
	GR NO. 169129 2007-03-28	SPS. VIRGILIO F. SANTOS v. SPS. JOSE LUMBAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is noteworthy that at the time of the execution of the documents denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa," the entire property owned by Maria, the mother of Rita, was not yet divided among her and her co-heirs and so the description of the entire estate is the only description that can be placed in the "Bilihan ng Lupa, dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981" because the exact metes and bounds of the subject property sold to respondents Spouses Lumbao could not be possibly determined at that time. Nevertheless, that does not make the contract of sale between Rita and respondents Spouses Lumbao invalid because both the law and jurisprudence have categorically held that even while an estate remains undivided, co-owners have each full ownership of their respective aliquots or undivided shares and may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage them.[28] The co-owner, however, has no right to sell or alienate a specific or determinate part of the thing owned in common, because such right over the thing is represented by an aliquot or ideal portion without any physical division. In any case, the mere fact that the deed purports to transfer a concrete portion does not per se render the sale void. The sale is valid, but only with respect to the aliquot share of the selling co-owner. Furthermore, the sale is subject to the results of the partition upon the termination of the co-ownership.[29]
	GR NO. 160741 2007-03-22	HERMINIA CANDO v. SPS. AURORA OLAZO AND CLAUDIO OLAZO TINGA, J.
There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.[12]
	GR No. 157399 2005-11-17	PEOPLE v. JOSE TING LAN UY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The argument is puerile. It bears stressing that the prosecution presented as witness Atty. Lamberto P. Melencio who saw appellant at the hospital to show him the prepared statement and to verify from him the truth of its contents.[36] Atty. Melencio testified that he asked appellant to go over the document before affixing his signature thereto.[37] He also inquired whether or not appellant was coerced or intimidated by anybody when the statement was taken.[38] Appellant denied that he was coerced or intimidated,[39] affirmed the contents of the document as a true reflection of his statements,[40] and signed the same.[41] It need not be overemphasized that the sworn statement is a duly notarized document which has in its favor the presumption of regularity and, thus, it can be contradicted only by clear and convincing evidence. Without that sort of evidence, the presumption of regularity, the evidentiary weight conferred upon such public document with respect to its execution, as well as the statements and the authenticity of the signatures thereon, stand.[42]

ADELINA GUERZON BARCENAS v. SPS. ANASTACIO TOMAS