Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. ANGELO B. MALABANAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 205298 2014-09-10	LEOPOLDO QUINTOS Y DEL AMOR v. PEOPLE CARPIO, ACTING C.J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[15] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[16] Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[17]
	GR No. 189532 2014-06-11	VIRGINIA S. DIO v. SUBIC BAY MARINE EXPLORATORIUM PEREZ, J.
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for the examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of 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 whole situation.[21] Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it 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.[22]
	GR No. 175768 2013-12-11	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. EDGARDO M. CRISTOBAL AND MA. TERESITA S. CRISTOBAL SERENO, C.J.
On this score, petitioner insists that we must take cognizance of a supervening event that it has already consolidated the property's title in its name, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-432045 (M) and T-432046 (M).[30] While the Court has "ample authority to review and resolve matters not assigned and specified as errors by either of the parties in the appeal if it finds the consideration and determination of the same essential and indispensable in order to arrive at a just decision in the case,"[31] we agree with the respondents that the Court cannot automatically accede to the alleged consolidation, for the matter is essentially a question of fact best left to the determination of the lower court. In Republic v. Malabanan,[32] we held that:[T]his Court has differentiated a question of law from a question of fact. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it 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.
	GR No. 199892 2012-12-10	PEOPLE v. ARTURO PUNZALAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, whether or not petitioner acted in avoidance of greater evil or injury is a question of fact. It is an issue which concerns doubt or difference arising as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.[38] In this connection, this Court declared in Martinez v. Court of Appeals[39]: [T]he well-entrenched rule is that findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the CA are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.
	GR No. 174300 2012-12-05	MINDANAO TERMINAL v. NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA MINTERBRO–SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. There is a question of fact if the issue invites a review of the evidence presented.[33]
	GR No. 181664 2012-11-14	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CRISPIN D. RAMOS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it 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.[18]
	GR No. 194880 2012-06-20	REPUBLIC v. SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SERENO, J.
In Republic v. Malabanan,[48] the Court clarified the three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, to wit: (1) by ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error under Rule 41, whereby judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; (2) by a petition for review under Rule 42, whereby judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and (3) by a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45. "The first mode of appeal is taken to the [Court of Appeals] on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal is elevated to the Supreme Court only on questions of law."[49] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 190994 2011-09-07	TONGONAN HOLDINGS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO ESCAÑO MENDOZA, J.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Malabanan,[15] this Court distinguished a question of law from a question of fact. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it 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.[16]