Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MEA BUILDERS v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 170414 2010-08-25	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. PACIFIC AIRWAYS CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
In a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions as when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts or the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion.[42]
	GR No.123346 2007-12-14	MANOTOK REALTY v. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TINGA, J,
For their part, the Manotoks challenged the validity of the title relied on by CLT, claiming that Dimson's title, the proximate source of CLT's title, was irregularly issued and, hence, the same and subsequent titles flowing therefrom are likewise void. The Manotoks asserted their ownership over Lot 26 and claimed that they derived it from several awardees and/or vendees of the National Housing Authority.[9] The Manotok title likewise traced as its primary source OCT No. 994 which, on 9 September 1918, was transferred to Alejandro Ruiz and Mariano Leuterio who had previously acquired the property on 21 August 1918 by virtue of an "Escritura de Venta" executed by Don Tomas Arguelles and Don Enrique Llopis.[10] On 3 March 1920, Ruiz and Leuterio sold the property to Francisco Gonzalez who held title thereto until 22 August 1938 when the property was transferred to Jose Leon Gonzalez, Consuelo Susana Gonzalez, Juana Francisca Gonzalez, Maria Clara Gonzalez, Francisco Felipe Gonzalez and Concepcion Maria Gonzalez under TCT No. 35486. The lot was then, per annotation dated 21 November 1946, subdivided into seven (7) parcels each in the name of each of the Gonzalezes. [11]
	GR NO. 169632 2006-03-28	UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES' UNION-FFW v. CA GARCIA, J.
Prefatorily, we restate the time-honored principle that in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below, our jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court.[13] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[14]
	GR NO. 161865 2005-03-10	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MONET’S EXPORT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Prefatorily, we restate the time honored principle that in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court.[27] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect. A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[28]