This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2016-02-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or should be rejected as feeble or spurious; or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue; whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight - all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by the Supreme Court whose review of cases decided by the CA is confined only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[35] | |||||
|
2016-02-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is well-settled that as a general rule, this Court is not a trier of facts.[36] Thus, absent the recognized exceptions to this general rule, this Court will not review the findings of fact of the lower courts.[37] In this case, petitioners failed to show that the exceptions to justify a review of the appreciation of facts by the Court of Appeals are present. | |||||
|
2015-09-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| (k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[18] | |||||
|
2015-09-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Resolving questions of fact is a function of the lower courts.[113] This court is a collegiate body. It does not receive evidence nor conduct trial procedures that involve the marking of documentary evidence by the parties and hearing the direct and cross-examination of each and every witness presented for testimonial evidence. This court does not deal with matters such as whether evidence presented deserve probative weight or must be rejected as spurious; whether the two sides presented evidence adequate to establish their proposition; whether evidence presented by one party can be considered as strong, clear, and convincing when weighed and analyzed against the other party's evidence; whether the documents presented by one party can be accorded full faith and credit considering the other party's protests; or whether certain inconsistencies in the party's body of proofs can justify not giving these evidence weight.[114] | |||||
|
2014-06-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be emphasized that the determination of whether or not petitioners sufficiently proved their claim of ownership or equitable title is substantially a factual issue that is generally improper for Us to delve into. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that the petition for review on certiorari "shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth." In appeals by certiorari, therefore, only questions of law may be raised, because this Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial.[14] Although there are exceptions[15] to this general rule as eloquently enunciated in jurisprudence, none of the circumstances calling for their application obtains in the case at bar. Thus, We are constrained to respect and uphold the findings of fact arrived at by both the RTC and the CA. | |||||