Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. CA

This case has been cited 11 times or more.

	GR No. 175291 2011-07-27	HEIRS OF NICOLAS S. CABIGAS v. MELBA L. LIMBACO BRION, J.
There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter. [13] On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
	GR No. 186053 2010-11-15	REPUBLIC v. NISAIDA SUMERA NISHINA CARPIO MORALES, J.
The above-quoted rule contemplates multiple appeals during the pendency of special proceedings. A record on appeal - in addition to the notice of appeal - is thus required to be filed as the original records of the case should remain with the trial court[21] to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by said court and held to be final.[22]
	GR No. 160825 2010-03-26	VOLTAIRE I. ROVIRA v. HEIRS OF JOSE C. DELESTE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in actions for partition of property with accounting, in the special civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of mortgage.[9] The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final.[10] In such a case, the filing of a record on appeal becomes indispensable since only a particular incident of the case is brought to the appellate court for resolution with the rest of the proceedings remaining within the jurisdiction of the trial court.[11]
	GR No. 168800 2009-04-16	NEW REGENT SOURCES v. TEOFILO VICTOR TANJUATCO CARPIO, J.
In its petition, NRSI questions the trial court's dismissal of its complaint upon a demurrer to evidence and invites a calibration of the evidence on record to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis for the trial court's order. This factual analysis, however, would involve questions of fact which are improper in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is well established that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[19] A question of law exists when there is doubt or difference as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[20] There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[21] Otherwise, there is a question of fact. Since it raises essentially questions of fact, the instant petition must be denied.
	GR No. 161219 2008-10-06	MARINDUQUE MINING v. CA CARPIO, J.
No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or the Rules of Court so require.[24] The reason for multiple appeals in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the trial court and held to be final.[25] In such a case, the filing of a record on appeal becomes indispensable since only a particular incident of the case is brought to the appellate court for resolution with the rest of the proceedings remaining within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
	GR No. 159130 2008-08-22	ATTY. GEORGE S. BRIONES v. LILIA J. HENSON-CRUZ BRION, J.
The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final.[15] In this multi-appeal mode, the probate court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter of the appeal but retains jurisdiction over the special proceeding from which the appeal was taken for purposes of further remedies the parties may avail of.[16]
	GR NO. 132537 2005-10-14	MARY JOSEPHINE GOMEZ v. ROEL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[10] On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.[11] In cases of motions to dismiss on ground of lack of jurisdiction, the allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted.[12] Thus, the hypothetical admission in a motion to dismiss of the facts alleged in the complaint renders them beyond dispute and forecloses any issue of fact for purposes of the motion.[13] And the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom for purposes of applying the law on jurisdiction is accurate or correct is a question of law.[14]
	GR No. 161172 2004-12-13	NADINE ROSARIO M. MORALES v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We agree with petitioner that respondent's appeal to the appellate court raises only questions of law. There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[11] On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.[12]
	GR No. 156259 2003-09-18	GROGUN v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Corollary thereto, in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[24] it was held that there is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.