This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-10-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Republic asserts that the assigned errors in its Petition are on questions of law, but in reality, these questions delve into the sufficiency of evidence relied upon by the MeTC and the Court of Appeals in granting Tensuan's Application for Registration of the subject property. It is basic that where it is the sufficiency of evidence that is being questioned, it is a question of fact.[26] | |||||
|
2012-03-21 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The fundamental rule is that the scope of our judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact.[47] It is basic that where it is the sufficiency of evidence that is being questioned, there is a question of fact.[48] Evidently, the CIR does not point out any specific provision of law that was wrongly interpreted by the CTA En Banc in the latter's assailed Decision. Petitioner anchors it contention on the alleged existence of the sufficiency of evidence it had proffered to prove that Petron was involved in the perpetration of fraud in the transfer and utilization of the subject TCCs, an allegation that the CTA En Banc failed to consider. We have consistently held that it is not the function of this Court to analyze or 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 glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[49] Such an exception does not obtain in the circumstances of this case. | |||||