This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to resolving only questions of law. A question of law arises when the doubt exists 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.[31] Under these significations, we clearly cannot resolve this petition's issues without conducting a re-examination and re-evaluation of the lower tribunals' unanimous findings on the factual matters (of the property's conversion and of the petitioners' ownership of the property), including the presented evidence, which the Court's limited Rule 45 jurisdiction does not allow. | |||||
|
2003-05-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the February 16, 2001 Decision[2] and the August 6, 2001 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals[4] (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 59564. The dispositive part of the Decision reads: | |||||