Lawyerly

GR No. 159588

2010-09-15

P & CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT ROBERTO L. CALINISAN v. SPO2 REYNALDO ROAQUIN Y LADERAS

ABAD, J.

One. An issue of fact exists when what is in question is the truth or falsity of the alleged facts, whereas an issue of law exists when what is in question is what the law is on a certain state of facts.[14] The test, therefore, for determining whether an issue is one of law or of fact, is whether the CA could adjudicate it without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is an issue of law; otherwise, it is an issue of fact.[15]

GR No. 174290

2009-01-20

ST. MARY OF WOODS SCHOOL v. OFFICE OF REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts, or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to one another and to the whole, and probabilities of the situation. Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or questions both of law and of fact is best left to the appellate court, and all doubts as to the correctness of such conclusions will be resolved in favor of the Court of Appeals.[59]

GR No. 155635

2008-11-07

MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. CA

VELASCO JR., J.

[27] G.R. No. 137898, December 15, 2000, 348 SCRA 401, 409.

GR NO. 166744

2006-11-02

AC ENTERPRISES v. FRABELLE PROPERTIES CORPORATION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Equally important, a defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action is regarded as having hypothetically admitted all the averments thereof.[53] The general rule is that the facts asserted in the complaint must be taken into account without modification although with reasonable inferences therefrom.[54] However, all the pleadings filed may be considered, including annexes, motions and the other evidence on record, to wit: However, in so doing, the .trial court does not rule on the truth or falsity of such documents. It merely includes such documents in the hypothetical admission. Any review of a finding of lack of cause of action based on these documents would not involve a calibration of the probative value of such pieces of evidence but would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether the law was properly applied given the facts and these supporting documents. Therefore, what would inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of law, and not questions of fact.[55] Section 2, Rule 3, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. SEC. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2a) "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in essence to be affected by the judgment as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.[56] A real party in interest-plaintiff is one who has a legal right while a real party defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation whose act or omission violate the legal right of the former.[57]

GR NO. 149493

2006-06-22

RAFAELITO M. GARAYBLAS v. JOSE L. ATIENZA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

As a rule, the remedy from a final order is by writ of error to the Court of Appeals or a petition for review on certiorari to this Court under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court where only questions of law are raised or involved.[31] The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[32]

GR NO. 151132

2006-06-22

FIRST BANCORP v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. If the query requires a reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual. On the other hand, there is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue rests solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[27] Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or both questions of law and fact is best left to the appellate court.[28] All doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of the appellate court will be resolved in favor of the CA unless it commits an error or commits a grave abuse of discretion.[29]

GR NO. 156311

2005-12-16

CENTRAL BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. AURORA P. CASTRO

PUNO, J.

An appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.[20] A question is one of law when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. It is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the resolution of the issue raised requires a calibration of the whole evidence.[21]

GR NO. 167631

2005-12-16

JENETTE MARIE B. CRISOLOGO v. GLOBE TELECOM INC.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

THE COURT A QUO ISSUED THE ASSAILED DECISION IN A WAY THAT IT IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND HAS SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS TO CALL FOR THE EXERCISE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[7] The issues on the award of damages call for a re-evaluation of the evidence before the trial court, which is obviously a question of fact. Cases where an appeal involved questions of fact, of law, or both fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.[8] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 139278

2004-10-25

CLEMENT L. CUCUECO v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

At first blush, it may appear that the issues raised by respondents indeed involve questions of fact justifying their resort to ordinary appeal. A closer scrutiny, however, shows that the appeal actually involves purely questions of law. The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[17]

GR No. 152947

2004-07-07

EAST ASIA TRADERS v. REPUBLIC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In China Road and Bridge Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,[11] we ruled: "It is well settled that in a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action, the issue is passed upon on the basis of the allegations assuming them to be true. The court does not inquire into the truth of the allegations and declare them to be false, otherwise it would be a procedural error and a denial of due process to the plaintiff. Only the statements in the complaint may be properly considered, and the court cannot take cognizance of external facts or hold preliminary hearings to ascertain their existence. To put it simply, the test for determining whether a complaint states or does not state a cause of action against the defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, the judge may validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint." We reviewed very carefully respondent's allegations in its complaint. In a nutshell, respondent alleged that the defendants (herein petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest) procured their lot is inalienable because the DENR investigation disclosed that it was intended by the government for the construction of a national road; that defendants' titles are null and void and should be cancelled and, therefore, Lot 4355 should be reverted to the State. These allegations are sufficient to constitute a cause of action for reversion.

GR No. 130730

2001-10-19

HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON

DE LEON, JR., J.

In petitions for review on certiorari, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing questions of law.[13] For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[14] Thus, the findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive on this Court which is not a trier of facts. Although if said factual findings do not conform to the evidence on record, this Court will not hesitate to review and reverse the factual findings of the lower courts.[15] In the instant case, we find sufficient basis to deviate from the rule since the extant evidence and prevailing law support a finding different from the conclusion of the appellate court.

	GR No. 159588 2010-09-15	P & CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT ROBERTO L. CALINISAN v. SPO2 REYNALDO ROAQUIN Y LADERAS ABAD, J.
One. An issue of fact exists when what is in question is the truth or falsity of the alleged facts, whereas an issue of law exists when what is in question is what the law is on a certain state of facts.[14] The test, therefore, for determining whether an issue is one of law or of fact, is whether the CA could adjudicate it without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is an issue of law; otherwise, it is an issue of fact.[15]
	GR No. 174290 2009-01-20	ST. MARY OF WOODS SCHOOL v. OFFICE OF REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts, or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to one another and to the whole, and probabilities of the situation. Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or questions both of law and of fact is best left to the appellate court, and all doubts as to the correctness of such conclusions will be resolved in favor of the Court of Appeals.[59]
	GR No. 155635 2008-11-07	MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
[27] G.R. No. 137898, December 15, 2000, 348 SCRA 401, 409.
	GR NO. 166744 2006-11-02	AC ENTERPRISES v. FRABELLE PROPERTIES CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
Equally important, a defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action is regarded as having hypothetically admitted all the averments thereof.[53] The general rule is that the facts asserted in the complaint must be taken into account without modification although with reasonable inferences therefrom.[54] However, all the pleadings filed may be considered, including annexes, motions and the other evidence on record, to wit: However, in so doing, the .trial court does not rule on the truth or falsity of such documents. It merely includes such documents in the hypothetical admission. Any review of a finding of lack of cause of action based on these documents would not involve a calibration of the probative value of such pieces of evidence but would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether the law was properly applied given the facts and these supporting documents. Therefore, what would inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of law, and not questions of fact.[55] Section 2, Rule 3, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. SEC. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2a) "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in essence to be affected by the judgment as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.[56] A real party in interest-plaintiff is one who has a legal right while a real party defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation whose act or omission violate the legal right of the former.[57]
	GR NO. 149493 2006-06-22	RAFAELITO M. GARAYBLAS v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CALLEJO, SR., J.
As a rule, the remedy from a final order is by writ of error to the Court of Appeals or a petition for review on certiorari to this Court under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court where only questions of law are raised or involved.[31] The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[32]
	GR NO. 151132 2006-06-22	FIRST BANCORP v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. If the query requires a reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual. On the other hand, there is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue rests solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[27] Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or both questions of law and fact is best left to the appellate court.[28] All doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of the appellate court will be resolved in favor of the CA unless it commits an error or commits a grave abuse of discretion.[29]
	GR NO. 156311 2005-12-16	CENTRAL BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. AURORA P. CASTRO PUNO, J.
An appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.[20] A question is one of law when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. It is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the resolution of the issue raised requires a calibration of the whole evidence.[21]
	GR NO. 167631 2005-12-16	JENETTE MARIE B. CRISOLOGO v. GLOBE TELECOM INC. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
THE COURT A QUO ISSUED THE ASSAILED DECISION IN A WAY THAT IT IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND HAS SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS TO CALL FOR THE EXERCISE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[7] The issues on the award of damages call for a re-evaluation of the evidence before the trial court, which is obviously a question of fact. Cases where an appeal involved questions of fact, of law, or both fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.[8] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 139278 2004-10-25	CLEMENT L. CUCUECO v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At first blush, it may appear that the issues raised by respondents indeed involve questions of fact justifying their resort to ordinary appeal. A closer scrutiny, however, shows that the appeal actually involves purely questions of law. The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[17]
	GR No. 152947 2004-07-07	EAST ASIA TRADERS v. REPUBLIC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In China Road and Bridge Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,[11] we ruled: "It is well settled that in a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action, the issue is passed upon on the basis of the allegations assuming them to be true. The court does not inquire into the truth of the allegations and declare them to be false, otherwise it would be a procedural error and a denial of due process to the plaintiff. Only the statements in the complaint may be properly considered, and the court cannot take cognizance of external facts or hold preliminary hearings to ascertain their existence. To put it simply, the test for determining whether a complaint states or does not state a cause of action against the defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, the judge may validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint." We reviewed very carefully respondent's allegations in its complaint. In a nutshell, respondent alleged that the defendants (herein petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest) procured their lot is inalienable because the DENR investigation disclosed that it was intended by the government for the construction of a national road; that defendants' titles are null and void and should be cancelled and, therefore, Lot 4355 should be reverted to the State. These allegations are sufficient to constitute a cause of action for reversion.
	GR No. 130730 2001-10-19	HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON DE LEON, JR., J.
In petitions for review on certiorari, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing questions of law.[13] For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[14] Thus, the findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive on this Court which is not a trier of facts. Although if said factual findings do not conform to the evidence on record, this Court will not hesitate to review and reverse the factual findings of the lower courts.[15] In the instant case, we find sufficient basis to deviate from the rule since the extant evidence and prevailing law support a finding different from the conclusion of the appellate court.

CHINA ROAD v. CA