Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICENTE CAOILE v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 180364 2014-12-03	TZE SUN WONG v. KENNY WONG PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
[S]ince the Commissioners of Immigration are under the Department of Justice[46] and, in this case, they followed the Secretary's Order setting aside the individual actions of the former Commissioners, the aggrieved parties should have exhausted their administrative remedies by appealing to the Secretary before seeking judicial intervention.[47]
	GR No. 174445 2012-02-15	SPS. WILLIAM GUIDANGEN AND MARY GUIDANGEN v. DEVOTA B. WOODEN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Also noteworthy is Dolores' statement that her son, Nestor, denied being the owner of the old house during one of her visits thereto. Refusing to give weight to the same, the CA surmised that "it would not be farfetched to assume that Nestor Wooden bought the house after his mother's visit, having realized that he already spent far too much for the improvement of the subject house."[47] The Court, however, finds this statement a mere assumption which cannot be used as basis in deciding a case or in granting relief. A judgment has to be based on facts. Conjectures and surmises cannot substitute for the facts.[48] "A conjecture is always a conjecture; it can never be admitted as evidence."[49] Moreover, even if such assumption is permitted, same still runs counter to respondent's claim that she and Nestor renovated the old house after they purchased it sometime in 1994 and 1995.
	GR NO. 160922 2006-02-27	JEANY-VI G. KIANI v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
In case such motion for reconsideration is denied by the BOC, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Secretary of Justice[38] and, if the latter denies the appeal, to the Office of the President of the Philippines. The party may also choose to file a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on the ground that the Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal, the remedy of appeal not being adequate and speedy remedy.[39] In case the Secretary of Justice dismisses the appeal, the aggrieved party may resort to filing a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as amended.[40]