This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-11-20 |
BRION, 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.[10] For a question to be one of law, its resolution must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants, but must rely solely on what the law provides on the given set of facts. If the facts are disputed or if the issues require an examination of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact. The test, therefore, is not the appellation given to a question by the party raising it, but whether the appellate court can resolve the issue without examining or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[11] | |||||
|
2013-10-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In this case, the RTC dismissed the petitioners' complaint with the bare statement that "the title of the [respondent's] predecessor Eufracio Lopez was issued on October 11, 1972 and the same has not as yet been judicially declared null and void by any competent court up to the present, as against [petitioners'] complaint which was filed with [the RTC] only on September 26, 2003, or more than thirty (30) years have lapsed before [petitioners] instituted [the] present action."[16] The RTC simply reckoned the commencement of the prescriptive period on the issuance of Lopez's title on October 11, 1972, as alleged by the respondent in its answer. In their complaint, however, the petitioners disputed the validity of the respondent's title, alleged bad faith on the part of Lopez and the respondent, and reiterated the existence of the final and executory decision of the CA in Civil Case No. 1447. The petitioners also alleged in their complaint and appellants' brief that they are holders of TCT No. 18833 issued on September 20, 1999 pursuant to the CA decision in Civil Case No. 1447.[17] Thus, the petitioners prayed, both in their complaint and in their appellant's brief, that the respondent's title be set aside and their own title upheld. While the existence of different titles over the same property is an established fact, the allegations in the petitioners' complaint and appellants' brief as to the antecedent facts that led to the issuance of the titles create an uncertainty regarding the applicability of prescription and call for a calibration of the evidence on hand. This constitutes a question of fact and not a run-of-the-mill question of law as the CA would like to present it; more so since the petitioners charge the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest with bad faith. "[T]he question of whether a person acted with good faith or bad faith in purchasing and registering real property is a question of fact, x x x."[18] It is evidentiary and has to be established by the claimant with clear and convincing evidence, and this necessitates an examination of the evidence of all the parties.[19] In Macababbad, Jr., the Court also ruled that prescription is a question of fact where there is a need to determine the veracity of factual matters such as the date when the period to bring the action commenced to run.[20] | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence dictates that there is a "question of law" when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts or circumstances; on the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the issue raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test for determining whether the supposed error was one of "law" or "fact" is not the appellation given by the parties raising the same; rather, it is whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is one of fact.[35] In other words, where there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is a question of law.[36] However, if the question posed requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relationship to each other, the issue is factual.[37] | |||||
|
2013-04-10 |
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] | |||||
|
2012-06-20 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented or of the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[50] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[51] | |||||