Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENJAMIN P. QUITORIANO for himself and in behalf of the other successors-in-interest of the intestate estate of the late NICOLAS QUITORIANO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD and EDUARDO AGLIBOT

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179741 2015-12-09	HEIRS OF SPS. HILARIO MARINAS AND BERNARDINA N. MARINAS v. BERNARDO FRIANEZA JARDELEZA, J.
We find it unnecessary to rule on petitioners' claim of illegal conversion at this time. For one, the record is completely bereft of proof to support such contention. More importantly, such claim involves factual questions which cannot be resolved by this Court, as it is not a trier of fact.[59]
	GR No. 155680 2012-07-02	FIRST LEVERAGE v. SOLID BUILDERS PERALTA, J.
At the outset, the Court stresses that First Leverage's first assigned error raises issues of fact. Certainly the questions as to whether First Leverage's formal offer to buy the subject properties was validly made within the negotiation period; whether its offer is more advantageous to PNB Republic and to the Government than the offer of Solid Builders; whether Solid Builders did not make any formal offer to buy the disputed properties; whether the Deed of Promise to Sell in favor of Solid Builders was validly approved by the Loan and Assets Recovery Board Committee and the Board of Directors of PNB Republic; and, whether the said Deed of Promise to Sell was hastily executed in violation of law and contrary to public policy, are all questions which call for a review of the evidence on record to determine if they have factual basis. However, it is settled that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.[13] This Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence.[14] The jurisdiction of this Court over cases brought to it via petition for review on certiorari is limited to the review and rectification of errors allegedly committed by the lower courts.[15] These issues should be properly threshed out before the trial court.
	GR No. 165938 2009-11-25	ROGELIO DIZON v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK PERALTA, J.
Coming to the third and fourth issues, petitioner calls on the Court to resolve issues of fact. Settled is the rule that a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law.[10] This Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence. The jurisdiction of this Court over cases brought to it is limited to the review and rectification of errors allegedly committed by the lower courts.[11] While there are exceptions to this rule,[12] the Court finds that the present case does not fall under any of them.
	GR No. 170318 2009-01-15	JOSEPH REMENTIZO v. HEIRS OF PELAGIA VDA. DE MADARIETA CARPIO, J.
Thus, Madarieta miserably failed to show that Rementizo employed fraud in the awarding of EP No. A-028390-H in his favor. Fraud is a question of fact which must be alleged and proved. Fraud cannot be presumed and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.[11] In this case, there was no such evidence showing actual fraud on the part of Rementizo.