Lawyerly

GR No. 167615

2016-01-11

LEONEN, J.

The issue of damages is a factual one. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall only pertain to questions of law.[116] It is not the duty of this court to re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the lower courts.[117] Furthermore, unless the petition clearly shows that there is grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this court.[118] In Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr.:[119]

GR No. 167615

2016-01-11

SPS. ALEXANDER v. KODAK PHILIPPINES

LEONEN, J.

The award for moral and exemplary damages also appears to be sufficient. Moral damages are granted to alleviate the moral suffering suffered by a party due to an act of another, but it is not intended to enrich the victim at the defendant's expense.[127] It is not meant to punish the culpable party and, therefore, must always be reasonable vis-a-vis the injury caused.[128] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are awarded when the injurious act is attended by bad faith.[129] In this case, respondent was found to have misrepresented its right over the generator set that was seized. As such, it is properly liable for exemplary damages as an example to the public.[130]

GR No. 175483

2015-10-14

VALENTINA S. CLEMENTE v. CA

JARDELEZA, 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.[36]

GR No. 205867

2015-02-23

MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA v. GREGORIA TAGUFA

MENDOZA, J.

The fact that Gregoria was able to secure a title in her name does not operate to vest ownership upon her of the subject land. "Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner; nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner."[19]

GR No. 200013

2015-01-14

BETTY GEPULLE-GARBO v. SPS. VICTOREY ANTONIO GARABATO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the expert's function being to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion.[34] This principle holds true especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones.[35] A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.[36]

GR No. 184458

2015-01-14

RODRIGO RIVERA v. SPS. SALVADOR CHUA AND S. VIOLETA CHUA

PEREZ, J.

In this case, Rivera's bare assertion is unsubstantiated and directly disputed by the testimony of a handwriting expert from the NBI. While it is true that resort to experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the examination or the comparison of handwriting, the trial courts in this case, on its own, using the handwriting expert testimony only as an aid, found the disputed document valid.[18]

GR No. 185745

2014-10-15

SPS. DOMINADOR MARCOS v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO BANGI

REYES, J.

Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. 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.[14]

GR No. 171496

2014-03-03

REPUBLIC v. ORTIGAS

LEONEN, J.

There is a question of law when the appellant raises an issue as to what law shall be applied on a given set of facts.[39] Questions of law do "not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented."[40] Its resolution rests solely on the application of a law given the circumstances.[41] There is a question of fact when the court is required to examine the truth or falsity of the facts presented.[42] A question of fact "invites a review of the evidence."[43]

GR No. 186014

2013-06-26

ALI AKANG v. MUNICIPALITY OF ISULAN

REYES, J.

The petitioner asserts that the Deed of Sale was notarized by Atty. Gualberto B. Baclig who was not authorized to administer the same, hence, null and void. This argument must be rejected as it is being raised for the first time only in this petition. In his arguments before the RTC and the CA, the petitioner focused mainly on the validity and the nature of the Deed of Sale, and whether there was payment of the purchase price. The rule is settled that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and due process.[30] Accordingly, the petitioner's attack on the validity of the Deed of Sale vis-à-vis its compliance with the 2004 New Notarial Law must be disregarded.[31]

GR No. 175428

2013-04-15

RICARDO CHU v. MELANIA CAPARAS

BRION, J.

Repeatedly, this Court has ruled that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law and not questions of facts. "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."[25] The question, to be one of law, must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances and should avoid the scrutiny of the probative value of the parties' evidence.[26] Once the issue invites a review of the factual findings of the RTC and of the CA, as in this case, the question posed is one of fact that is proscribed in a Rule 45 petition.[27]

GR No. 158361

2013-04-10

INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO B. JOAQUIN

BERSAMIN, J.

A question of law exists when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, but, in contrast, a question of fact exists when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the facts alleged. A question of law does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or by any of them; the resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[30] When there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn from the facts is correct is a question of law.[31]

GR No. 173987

2013-02-25

PADILLA MERCADO v. SPS. AGUEDO ESPINA

PERALTA, J.

As to the first issue, there is no dispute that the issue of timeliness of respondents' Motion to Dismiss petitioners' Amended Complaint was not raised by petitioners before the RTC. Neither was this issue raised in their Comment to respondents' petition for certiorari filed with the CA. It was only in their Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision that this matter was raised. It is well established that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel.[12] Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[13] Basic considerations of due process impel the adoption of this rule.[14]

GR No. 195592

2012-09-05

MAGDIWANG REALTY CORPORATION v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION

REYES, J.

Section 1, Rule 45 then categorically states that a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. 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.[23]

GR No. 175350

2012-06-13

EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. SPECIAL STEEL PRODUCTS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The Court, however, finds the award of P3 million excessive. Moral damages are given not to punish the defendant but only to give the plaintiff the means to assuage his sufferings with diversions and recreation.[66] We find that the award of P50,000.00[67] as moral damages is reasonable under the circumstances.

	GR No. 167615 2016-01-11	SPS. ALEXANDER v. KODAK PHILIPPINES LEONEN, J.
The issue of damages is a factual one. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall only pertain to questions of law.[116] It is not the duty of this court to re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the lower courts.[117] Furthermore, unless the petition clearly shows that there is grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this court.[118] In Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr.:[119]
	GR No. 167615 2016-01-11	SPS. ALEXANDER v. KODAK PHILIPPINES LEONEN, J.
The award for moral and exemplary damages also appears to be sufficient. Moral damages are granted to alleviate the moral suffering suffered by a party due to an act of another, but it is not intended to enrich the victim at the defendant's expense.[127] It is not meant to punish the culpable party and, therefore, must always be reasonable vis-a-vis the injury caused.[128] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are awarded when the injurious act is attended by bad faith.[129] In this case, respondent was found to have misrepresented its right over the generator set that was seized. As such, it is properly liable for exemplary damages as an example to the public.[130]
	GR No. 175483 2015-10-14	VALENTINA S. CLEMENTE v. CA JARDELEZA, 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.[36]
	GR No. 205867 2015-02-23	MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA v. GREGORIA TAGUFA MENDOZA, J.
The fact that Gregoria was able to secure a title in her name does not operate to vest ownership upon her of the subject land. "Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner; nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner."[19]
	GR No. 200013 2015-01-14	BETTY GEPULLE-GARBO v. SPS. VICTOREY ANTONIO GARABATO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the expert's function being to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion.[34] This principle holds true especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones.[35] A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.[36]
	GR No. 184458 2015-01-14	RODRIGO RIVERA v. SPS. SALVADOR CHUA AND S. VIOLETA CHUA PEREZ, J.
In this case, Rivera's bare assertion is unsubstantiated and directly disputed by the testimony of a handwriting expert from the NBI. While it is true that resort to experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the examination or the comparison of handwriting, the trial courts in this case, on its own, using the handwriting expert testimony only as an aid, found the disputed document valid.[18]
	GR No. 185745 2014-10-15	SPS. DOMINADOR MARCOS v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO BANGI REYES, J.
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. 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.[14]
	GR No. 171496 2014-03-03	REPUBLIC v. ORTIGAS LEONEN, J.
There is a question of law when the appellant raises an issue as to what law shall be applied on a given set of facts.[39] Questions of law do "not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented."[40] Its resolution rests solely on the application of a law given the circumstances.[41] There is a question of fact when the court is required to examine the truth or falsity of the facts presented.[42] A question of fact "invites a review of the evidence."[43]
	GR No. 186014 2013-06-26	ALI AKANG v. MUNICIPALITY OF ISULAN REYES, J.
The petitioner asserts that the Deed of Sale was notarized by Atty. Gualberto B. Baclig who was not authorized to administer the same, hence, null and void. This argument must be rejected as it is being raised for the first time only in this petition. In his arguments before the RTC and the CA, the petitioner focused mainly on the validity and the nature of the Deed of Sale, and whether there was payment of the purchase price. The rule is settled that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and due process.[30] Accordingly, the petitioner's attack on the validity of the Deed of Sale vis-à-vis its compliance with the 2004 New Notarial Law must be disregarded.[31]
	GR No. 175428 2013-04-15	RICARDO CHU v. MELANIA CAPARAS BRION, J.
Repeatedly, this Court has ruled that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law and not questions of facts. "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."[25] The question, to be one of law, must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances and should avoid the scrutiny of the probative value of the parties' evidence.[26] Once the issue invites a review of the factual findings of the RTC and of the CA, as in this case, the question posed is one of fact that is proscribed in a Rule 45 petition.[27]
	GR No. 158361 2013-04-10	INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO B. JOAQUIN BERSAMIN, J.
A question of law exists when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, but, in contrast, a question of fact exists when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the facts alleged. A question of law does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or by any of them; the resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[30] When there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn from the facts is correct is a question of law.[31]
	GR No. 173987 2013-02-25	PADILLA MERCADO v. SPS. AGUEDO ESPINA PERALTA, J.
As to the first issue, there is no dispute that the issue of timeliness of respondents' Motion to Dismiss petitioners' Amended Complaint was not raised by petitioners before the RTC. Neither was this issue raised in their Comment to respondents' petition for certiorari filed with the CA. It was only in their Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision that this matter was raised. It is well established that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel.[12] Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[13] Basic considerations of due process impel the adoption of this rule.[14]
	GR No. 195592 2012-09-05	MAGDIWANG REALTY CORPORATION v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION REYES, J.
Section 1, Rule 45 then categorically states that a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. 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.[23]
	GR No. 175350 2012-06-13	EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. SPECIAL STEEL PRODUCTS DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court, however, finds the award of P3 million excessive. Moral damages are given not to punish the defendant but only to give the plaintiff the means to assuage his sufferings with diversions and recreation.[66] We find that the award of P50,000.00[67] as moral damages is reasonable under the circumstances.

NANCY T. LORZANO v. JUAN TABAYAG