This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-06-30 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We have no reason to disturb this factual finding of the CA because it is supported by the evidence on record. Spouses Peralta filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which allows only questions of law to be raised. It is a settled rule that questions of fact are not reviewable in this kind of appeal. Under Rule 45, Section 1, "petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth."[32] A question of fact arises when there is "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."[33] It is further pointed out that "the determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue, which generally is outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review."[34] | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Interestingly, Gilbert also used the above discussed reasons as his arguments in Gilbert Guy v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[64] a case earlier decided by this Court. In that petition, Lincoln Continental, a corporation purportedly owned by Gilbert, filed with the RTC, Branch 24, Manila, a Complaint for Annulment of the Transfer of Shares of Stock against Gilbert's siblings, including his mother, Simny. The complaint basically alleged that Lincoln Continental owns 20,160 shares of stock of Northern Islands; and that Gilbert's siblings, in order to oust him from the management of Northern Islands, falsely transferred the said shares of stock in his sisters' names.[65] This Court dismissed Gilbert's petition and ruled in favor of his siblings viz: One thing is clear. It was established before the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that Lincoln Continental held the disputed shares of stock of Northern Islands merely in trust for the Guy sisters. In fact, the evidence proffered by Lincoln Continental itself supports this conclusion. It bears emphasis that this factual finding by the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, being supported by evidence, and is, therefore, final and conclusive upon this Court. | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| We reiterate our ruling in a line of cases that the jurisdiction of this Court, in cases brought before it from the CA, is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law.[10] Factual findings of courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive on this Court except if unsupported by the evidence on record.[11] There is a question of fact when 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 and the probative weight thereof, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to one another and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[12] | |||||