Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FEDERICO JARANTILLA v. ANTONIETA JARANTILLA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 171303 2016-01-20	ELIZABETH L. DIAZ v. GEORGINA R. ENCANTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The resolution of this case hinges on the question of bad faith on the part of the respondents in denying petitioner Diaz's sabbatical leave application and withholding of her salaries. Bad faith, however, is a question of fact and is evidentiary.[26] Thus, contrary to petitioner Diaz's belief that "[w]hat is involved in this stage of the case is the legal interpretation or the legal consequence of the material facts of this case," the resolution of the issue at hand involves a question of fact, which the respondents rightly assert, is not within the province of a Rule 45 petition.[27] Nonetheless, the Court makes an exception in this case especially so that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals have the same findings of fact, but they arrived at different conclusions.[28]
	GR No. 195203 2015-04-20	ANTONIO PAGARIGAN v. ANGELITA YAGUE BRION, J.
In the proceedings before the DARAB and the CA, the petitioner consistently failed to provide independent and concrete evidence to show that the respondents and their father, Anastacio, gave their consent (impliedly and expressly) to his institution as tenant of the subject rice land. We note that proof of consent by the landowner/s is largely a matter of evidence, and not a proper subject of a Rule 45 petition. Well-settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[34] In the absence of exceptional circumstances, we shall rely and give credence to the factual findings of the DARAB on the question of whether the landowners gave their consent to the petitioner's tenancy, especially when its finding on the matter was affirmed on appeal to the CA.
	GR No. 205664 2014-06-09	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. MARIANO TULIAO MENDOZA, J.
Here, Tuliao, as the registered owner, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and removal of structure. To support his claim, he presented not only tax declarations and tax receipts, but also a certificate of title. The Court agrees with the CA that the said pieces of evidence were sufficient to resolve the issue of who had the better right of possession. That being the case, the burden was shifted to the DepEd to prove otherwise. Unfortunately, the DepEd only presented testimonial evidence and nothing more to prove its defense and refute Tuliao's claim. Its lone witness was all that the DepEd had to prove its right of possession. As between a certificate of title, which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership,[19] accompanied with a tax declaration and a tax receipt on one hand, and a testimony of a lone witness who is a retired teacher on the other, the former prevails in establishing who has a better right of possession over the property, following the rule that testimonial evidence cannot prevail over documentary evidence.[20]
	GR No. 175177 2012-10-04	REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA JARALVE SUBSTITUTED BY ALAN JESS JARALVE DOCUMENTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
[73] Jarantilla, Jr. v. Jarantilla, G.R. No. 154486, December 1, 2010, 636 SCRA 299, 308.
	GR No. 175021 2011-06-15	REPUBLIC v. THI THU THUY T. DE GUZMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is a well-settled rule that in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. [57]
	GR No. 151369 2011-03-23	ANITA MONASTERIO-PE AND SPS. ROMULO TAN AND EDITHA PE-TAN v. JOSE JUAN TONG PERALTA, J.
At the outset, it bears emphasis that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[6] It is a settled rule that in the exercise of this Court's power of review, it does not inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence presented, consistent with the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts.[7] In the instant case, a perusal of the errors assigned by petitioners would readily show that they are raising factual issues the resolution of which requires the examination of evidence. Certainly, issues which are being raised in the present petition, such as the questions of whether the issue of physical possession is already included as one of the issues in a case earlier filed by petitioner Anita and her husband, as well as whether respondent complied with the law and rules on barangay conciliation, are factual in nature.