Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANGELITA MANZANO v. CA

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 172447 2009-09-18	IGLESIA EVANGELICA METODISTA EN LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. NATANAEL B. JUANE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
That IEMELIF has presented sufficient evidence to prove its allegations in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 173711-CV, thus, warranting the ejectment of Juane from the subject property, is a matter which the Court can no longer look into. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to one another and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation.[13] Time and again we have held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower tribunal or office. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.[14] Findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.[15]
	GR NO. 169356 2007-08-28	CARMEN FANGONIL - HERRERA v. TOMAS FANGONIL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this particular instance, we are clearly faced with issues of fact. A question of fact is involved when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation.[22] We find that the only questions to be resolved are the following: (a) whether or not the respondent court gravely erred in affirming the partition of parcel 1 in accordance with the findings of the trial court; and (b) whether or not the respondent court gravely erred in not finding that exclusive ownership of the properties in question has been vested in petitioner.