This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| To be sure, respondent even testified that she had warned their neighbors at Ladislao Diwa Village - including petitioner's sister - not to engage in any deal with Rogelio relative to the purchase of the subject property because of the cases she had filed against Rogelio. Petitioner denies that respondent had given such warning to her neighbors, which includes her sister, therefore arguing that such warning could not be construed as "notice" on her part that there is a person other than the seller himself who has any right or interest in the subject property. Nonetheless, despite petitioner's adamant denial, both courts a quo gave probative value to the testimony of respondent, and the instant petition failed to present any convincing evidence for this Court to reverse such factual finding. To be sure, it is not within our province to second-guess the courts a quo, and the re-determination of this factual issue is beyond the reach of a petition for review on certiorari where only questions of law may be reviewed.[30] | |||||
|
2009-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Both parties concede that this issue is factual. It is a basic rule that factual issues are beyond the province of this Court in a petition for review, for it is not our function to review evidence all over again.[17] Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of law may be raised in this Court in a petition for review on certiorari.[18] The reason is that the Court is not a trier of facts.[19] However, the rule is subject to several exceptions.[20] Under these exceptions, the Court may delve into and resolve factual issues, such as in cases where the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are absurd, contrary to the evidence on record, impossible, capricious or arbitrary, or based on a misappreciation of facts. | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The determination of personal cultivation is a factual issue and requires the exercise of a function not within the province of this Court. Well established is the rule that in an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[19] And so, too, is the rule that in agrarian cases, the only function of the appellate courts is to determine whether the findings of fact of the agrarian courts, such as the DARAB or, its predecessor, the Court of Agrarian Relations, are supported by substantial evidence, and where they are so supported, such findings are conclusive and binding upon the appellate courts.[20] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| This Court has held that rental payments are factual issues beyond the reach of an appeal via certiorari, as only questions of law may be reviewed.[33] Likewise, the question of whether a person is an agricultural tenant or not is basically a question of fact.[34] | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners further argue that Delia cannot qualify as tenant even on the assumption that she was the rightful successor to Anacleto's tenancy rights, because she did not personally cultivate the land and did not pay rent. In essence, petitioners urge this Court to ascertain and evaluate certain material facts which, however are not within the province of this Court to consider in a petition for review. Determination of personal cultivation and rental payments are factual issues beyond the reach of this petition. Well established is the rule that in an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[23] | |||||