Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PILAR Y. GOYENA v. AMPARO LEDESMA-GUSTILO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 174844 2013-03-20	VEVENCIA ECHIN PABALAN v. HEIRS OF SIMEON A.B. MAAMO PEREZ, J.
For the most part, petitioners raise questions of fact which, as a general rule, are not proper subjects of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is confined to questions of law.[24] This Court is not a trier of facts and cannot, therefore, be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties in the lower courts and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the court a quo and the appellate court were correct in their appreciation of the evidence.[25] Among the recognized exceptions to this rule, however is when the factual findings of the trial court are, as here, different from those of the CA.[26] Even then, a re-evaluation of factual issues would only be warranted when the assailed findings are totally bereft of support in the records or are so patently erroneous as to amount to grave abuse of discretion. So long as such findings are supported by the record, the findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on this Court, even if contrary to those of the trial court.[27]
	GR No. 178782 2011-09-21	JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT v. PROSENCIO D. JASO PEREZ, J.
Considering that they involve questions of fact, neither are we inclined to hospitably entertain the Spouses Realubit's insistence on the supposed fact that Josefina's joint venture with Biondo had already been dissolved and that the ice manufacturing business at 66-C Cenacle Drive, Sanville Subdivision, Project 6, Quezon City was merely a continuation of the same business they previously operated under a single proprietorship. It is well-entrenched doctrine that questions of fact are not proper subjects of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is confined to questions of law.[33] Upon the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts, we are not duty bound to examine the evidence introduced by the parties below to determine if the trial and the appellate courts correctly assessed and evaluated the evidence on record.[34] Absent showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts, the Court will limit itself to reviewing only errors of law.[35]
	GR No. 187640 2011-06-15	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. ANGELITO PEREZ AND JOCELYN PEREZ VELASCO JR., J.
The argument that the subject properties were sold to certain innocent purchasers for value cannot stand. First of all, such allegation is a question of fact, not a question of law. Time and again, this Court has pronounced that the issues that can be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 are limited only to questions of law. [42] The test of whether the question is one of law or of fact is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact. [43]
	GR No. 166470 2009-08-07	CECILIO C. HERNANDEZ v. JOVITA SAN JUAN-SANTOS CORONA, J.
As a general rule, this Court only resolves questions of law in a petition for review. We only take cognizance of questions of fact in exceptional circumstances, none of which is present in this case.[32] We thus adopt the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA.
	GR No. 144435 2007-02-06	GUILLERMINA BALUYUT v. EULOGIO POBLETE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, like the issue regarding the date of maturity of the loan, the question of whether or not petitioner received a copy of an Assessment Notice or Notice of Redemption from private respondents is also factual. As earlier explained, questions of fact are not proper subjects of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is confined to questions of law.[36]
	GR No. 152057 2003-09-29	PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
As has been enunciated in numerous cases, the issues that can be delved into a petition for review under Rule 45 are limited to questions of law. Thus, the Court is not tasked to calibrate and assess the probative weight of evidence adduced by the parties during trial all over again.[19] The test of whether the question is one of law or of fact is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[20]