Lawyerly

GR No. 157150

2011-09-21

BERSAMIN, J.

Whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or should be rejected as feeble or spurious; or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue; whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight - all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by the Supreme Court whose review of cases decided by the CA is confined only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[13]

GR No. 173021

2010-10-20

DELFIN LAMSIS v. MARGARITA SEMON DONG-E

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Both the trial and the appellate courts ruled that respondent has proven her claims of ownership and possession with a preponderance of evidence. Petitioners now argue that the two courts erred in their appreciation of the evidence. They ask the Court to review the evidence of both parties, despite the CA's finding that the trial court committed no error in appreciating the evidence presented during trial. Hence, petitioners seek a review of questions of fact, which is beyond the province of a Rule 45 petition. A question of fact exists if the uncertainty centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[63] "Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact."[64]

GR No. 174719

2010-05-05

PACRES v. HEIRS OF CECILIA YGOÑA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Petitioners would have the Court review the evidence presented by the parties, despite the CA's finding that the trial court committed no error in appreciating the evidence presented during the trial. This goes against the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. "Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact."[36] Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the CA only to questions of law, which may be resolved without having to re-examine the probative value of the evidence presented.[37]

GR No. 158104

2010-03-26

ANGELITA DE GUZMAN v. EMILIO A. GONZALEZ III

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Parenthetically, we find the matters raised by petitioner in her argumentation to be mainly questions of fact which are not proper in a petition of this nature. Petitioner is basically questioning the assessment and evaluation made by the Office of the Ombudsman of the pieces of evidence submitted at the reinvestigation. The Office of the Ombudsman found that the evidence on hand is sufficient to justify a probable cause to indict petitioner. Relying on the Report of Prosecutor Bayag, Jr., petitioner contended otherwise. At this juncture, it is worth emphasizing that where what is being questioned is the sufficiency of evidence, it is a question of fact.[10] A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not include review of the correctness of a board or tribunal's evaluation of the evidence but is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[11]

GR No. 168756

2009-12-07

SHRIMP SPECIALISTS v. FUJI-TRIUMPH AGRI-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

CARPIO, J.

A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable by this Court because they are final and conclusive especially if borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence.[37] In Paterno v. Paterno,[38] the Court explained: Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight - all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court, which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.

GR No. 149548

2009-12-04

ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In its appeals from the grant by the DAR Secretary of the applications for exemptions in DAR Administrative Cases No. A-9999-142-97 (G.R. No. 149548 and No. 179650) and No. A-9999-008-98 (G.R. No. 167505), DAMBA-NSFW was, in effect, questioning the sufficiency of the evidence of Roxas & Co. Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight -- all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[92]

GR No. 163868

2009-06-04

ROMUALDO PAGSIBIGAN v. PEOPLE

CARPIO, J.

There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The issue to be resolved must be limited to determining what the law is on a certain set of facts. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact.[13] In Paterno v. Paterno,[14] the Court held that:Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight -- all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth. Whether Pagsibigan received P215,000 from Cabasal is a question of fact. It can only be resolved after reviewing the probative value of the evidence. Thus, it is not reviewable.

GR No. 160918

2009-04-16

CONCEPCION B. ALCANTARA v. YCONG

CARPIO, J.

There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The issue to be resolved must be limited to determining what the law is on a certain set of facts. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact.[15] In Paterno v. Paterno,[16] the Court held that:Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight -- all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.

GR NO. 136202

2007-01-25

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

A prudent man knowing that payment is due him would have demanded payment by his debtor from the moment the same became due and demandable. More so if the sum involved runs in hundreds of thousand of pesos. By and large, every person, at the very moment he learns that he was deprived of a thing which rightfully belongs to him, would have created a big fuss. He would not have waited for a year within which to do so. It is most inconceivable that Templonuevo did not do this.[12] Generally, only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[13] Factual findings of the CA are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when the CA affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[14] Such questions on whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are questions of fact. The same holds true for questions on whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by the adverse party may be said to be strong, clear and convincing, or whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issues of fact which are not reviewable by the Court.[15]

GR NOS. 162335 & 162605

2005-12-12

SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[31] A petition for review should only cover questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable.[32]

GR NO. 129130

2005-12-09

FAR EAST BANK v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

It bears emphasis that questions on whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. This is true regardless of whether the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by the adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing. Whether certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by us. As a rule, we confine our review of cases decided by the CA only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[23] We note that without the CDB Schedule, no evidence links the Confirmation Receipts, Payment Orders and Official Receipts to the taxes allegedly withheld by CDB on the sale of the acquired assets.

	GR No. 157150 2011-09-21	PEDRO ANGELES v. ESTELITA B. PASCUAL BERSAMIN, J.
Whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or should be rejected as feeble or spurious; or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue; whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight - all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by the Supreme Court whose review of cases decided by the CA is confined only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[13]
	GR No. 173021 2010-10-20	DELFIN LAMSIS v. MARGARITA SEMON DONG-E DEL CASTILLO, J.
Both the trial and the appellate courts ruled that respondent has proven her claims of ownership and possession with a preponderance of evidence. Petitioners now argue that the two courts erred in their appreciation of the evidence. They ask the Court to review the evidence of both parties, despite the CA's finding that the trial court committed no error in appreciating the evidence presented during trial. Hence, petitioners seek a review of questions of fact, which is beyond the province of a Rule 45 petition. A question of fact exists if the uncertainty centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[63] "Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact."[64]
	GR No. 174719 2010-05-05	PACRES v. HEIRS OF CECILIA YGOÑA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners would have the Court review the evidence presented by the parties, despite the CA's finding that the trial court committed no error in appreciating the evidence presented during the trial. This goes against the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. "Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact."[36] Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the CA only to questions of law, which may be resolved without having to re-examine the probative value of the evidence presented.[37]
	GR No. 158104 2010-03-26	ANGELITA DE GUZMAN v. EMILIO A. GONZALEZ III DEL CASTILLO, J.
Parenthetically, we find the matters raised by petitioner in her argumentation to be mainly questions of fact which are not proper in a petition of this nature. Petitioner is basically questioning the assessment and evaluation made by the Office of the Ombudsman of the pieces of evidence submitted at the reinvestigation. The Office of the Ombudsman found that the evidence on hand is sufficient to justify a probable cause to indict petitioner. Relying on the Report of Prosecutor Bayag, Jr., petitioner contended otherwise. At this juncture, it is worth emphasizing that where what is being questioned is the sufficiency of evidence, it is a question of fact.[10] A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not include review of the correctness of a board or tribunal's evaluation of the evidence but is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[11]
	GR No. 168756 2009-12-07	SHRIMP SPECIALISTS v. FUJI-TRIUMPH AGRI-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable by this Court because they are final and conclusive especially if borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence.[37] In Paterno v. Paterno,[38] the Court explained: Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight - all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court, which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
In its appeals from the grant by the DAR Secretary of the applications for exemptions in DAR Administrative Cases No. A-9999-142-97 (G.R. No. 149548 and No. 179650) and No. A-9999-008-98 (G.R. No. 167505), DAMBA-NSFW was, in effect, questioning the sufficiency of the evidence of Roxas & Co. Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight -- all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[92]
	GR No. 163868 2009-06-04	ROMUALDO PAGSIBIGAN v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The issue to be resolved must be limited to determining what the law is on a certain set of facts. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact.[13] In Paterno v. Paterno,[14] the Court held that:Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight -- all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth. Whether Pagsibigan received P215,000 from Cabasal is a question of fact. It can only be resolved after reviewing the probative value of the evidence. Thus, it is not reviewable.
	GR No. 160918 2009-04-16	CONCEPCION B. ALCANTARA v. YCONG CARPIO, J.
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The issue to be resolved must be limited to determining what the law is on a certain set of facts. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact.[15] In Paterno v. Paterno,[16] the Court held that:Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight -- all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this Court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.
	GR NO. 136202 2007-01-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA AZCUNA, J.
A prudent man knowing that payment is due him would have demanded payment by his debtor from the moment the same became due and demandable. More so if the sum involved runs in hundreds of thousand of pesos. By and large, every person, at the very moment he learns that he was deprived of a thing which rightfully belongs to him, would have created a big fuss. He would not have waited for a year within which to do so. It is most inconceivable that Templonuevo did not do this.[12] Generally, only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[13] Factual findings of the CA are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when the CA affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[14] Such questions on whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are questions of fact. The same holds true for questions on whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by the adverse party may be said to be strong, clear and convincing, or whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issues of fact which are not reviewable by the Court.[15]
	GR NOS. 162335 & 162605 2005-12-12	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[31] A petition for review should only cover questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable.[32]
	GR NO. 129130 2005-12-09	FAR EAST BANK v. CA AZCUNA, J.
It bears emphasis that questions on whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. This is true regardless of whether the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by the adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing. Whether certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by us. As a rule, we confine our review of cases decided by the CA only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[23] We note that without the CDB Schedule, no evidence links the Confirmation Receipts, Payment Orders and Official Receipts to the taxes allegedly withheld by CDB on the sale of the acquired assets.

JACOBA T. PATERNO v. BEATRIZ PATERNO