Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BUENAVENTURA v. AMPARO PASCUAL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194785 2012-07-11	VIRGILIO S. DAVID v. MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE MENDOZA, J.
On the issue as to whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale, this Court is required to delve into the evidence of the case. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the issues to be threshed out are generally questions of law only, and not of fact. This was reiterated in the case of Buenaventura v. Pascual,[5] where it was written: Time and again, this Court has stressed that its jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts. The trial court, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying, is in a better position to decide the question of their credibility. Hence, the findings of the trial court must be accorded the highest respect, even finality, by this Court.
	GR No. 172011 2011-03-07	REPUBLIC v. TEODORO P. RIZALVO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Respondent has likewise met the second requirement as to ownership and possession. The MTC and the CA both agreed that respondent has presented sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence to show that he and his predecessors-in-interest were in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question. Said findings are binding upon this Court absent any showing that the lower courts committed glaring mistakes or that the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. In Buenaventura v. Pascual,[23] we reiterated,
	GR No. 173900 2010-08-08	GAUDENCIO LABRADOR v. SPS. ILDEFONSO PERLAS AND PACENCIA PERLAS AND SPS. ROGELIO POBRE AND MELINDA FOGATA POBRE CARPIO, J.
In view of the foregoing, and considering that it is not a function of this Court to try facts, or to review, examine, evaluate and weigh the probative value of the evidence presented,[19] we deem it necessary to remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the subject land occupied by Spouses Perlas since 1957 and covered by Tax Declaration No. 001-1390 is included in the land covered by OCT No. P-3030 issued in the name of petitioner.
	GR No. 180067 2009-06-30	REPUBLIC v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VELASCO JR., J.
A review of subsequent and recent rulings by this Court shows that the pronouncement in Herbieto has been applied to Buenaventura v. Republic,[17] Republic v. Diloy,[18] Ponciano, Jr. v. Laguna Lake Development Authority,[19] and Preciosa v. Pascual.[20] This Court's ruling in Naguit, on the other hand, has been applied to Republic v. Bibonia.[21]
	GR No. 180587 2009-03-20	SIMEON CABANG v. MR. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The issue is moreover factual and, to repeat that trite refrain, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the function of the Court to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. A question of fact would arise in such event. Questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not proper for its consideration.[35] The rationale behind this doctrine is that a review of the findings of fact of the appellate tribunal is not a function this Court normally undertakes. The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.[36] Although there are recognized exceptions[37] to this rule, none exists in this case to justify a departure therefrom.