Lawyerly

GR No. 200491

2014-06-09

KASAMAKA-CANLUBANG v. LAGUNA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PERALTA, J.

Time and again, this Court has reiterated the well-established rule that findings of fact by the CA are accorded the highest degree of respect, conclusive on the parties, which will generally not be disturbed on appeal.[17] Such findings are likewise binding and conclusive on this Court. Moreover, under the Rules of Court and the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.[18] The jurisdiction of this Court is, therefore, limited only to the review of errors of law allegedly committed by the CA.[19]

GR No. 179905

2009-08-19

REPUBLIC v. NEPTUNA G. JAVIER

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The settled rule is that the jurisdiction of this Court over petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact.[35] A question of law exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts as distinguished from a question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.[36] Where the petition makes no mention of any law that was wrongly interpreted or applied by the lower court despite the requirement under Rule 45 that questions of law raised must be "distinctly set forth," there is no basis for the petition.[37]

GR No. 162033

2009-05-08

HEIRS OF TRANQUILINO LABISTE v. HEIRS OF JOSE LABISTE

TINGA, J.

The genuineness and authenticity of the Affidavit of Epifanio and the Calig-onan sa Panagpalit are beyond cavil. As we have ruled in a litany of cases, resort to judicial review of the decisions of the Court of Appeals under Rule 45 is confined only to errors of law.[20] The findings of fact by the lower court are conclusive absent any palpable error or arbitrariness.[21] The Court finds no reason to depart from this principle. Moreover, it is a long settled doctrine that findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Court. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals for these are deemed final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.[22]

GR No. 171511

2009-03-04

RONNIE CALUAG v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

Moreover, findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court. It is not the function of this Court to weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals for these are deemed final and conclusive and may no longer be reviewed on appeal.[18]

GR No. 160855

2008-04-16

CONCEPCION CHUA GAW v. SUY BEN CHUA and FELISA CHUA

NACHURA, J.

At this juncture, we reiterate the well-entrenched doctrine that the findings of fact of the CA affirming those of the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality, by this Court. Only errors of law, not of fact, may be reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[39] A departure from the general rule may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or when the same is unsupported by the evidence on record.[40] There is no reason to apply the exception in the instant case because the findings and conclusions of the CA are in full accord with those of the trial court. These findings are buttressed by the evidence on record. Moreover, the issues and errors alleged in this petition are substantially the very same questions of fact raised by petitioner in the appellate court.

GR NO. 169890

2007-03-12

FELICIANO ESGUERRA v. VIRGINIA TRINIDAD

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final, conclusive and binding on this Court,[20] which is not a trier of facts,[21] hence, bereft of function under Rule 45 to examine and weigh the probative value of the evidence presented,[22] its jurisdiction being limited only to the review and revision of errors of law.[23] Albeit there are exceptions[24] to this rule, the cases at bar do not fall thereunder, there being no showing that the trial and appellate courts overlooked matters which, if considered, would alter their outcome.

GR NO. 152335

2005-12-19

ROMEO G. LORENZO v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

A departure from the general rule may be warranted where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court,[27] or when the same is unsupported by the evidence on record.[28] There is no ground to apply the exception in the instant case, however, because the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals are in full accord with those of the trial court. This Court will not assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to the appeal particularly where, as in this case, the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals coincide.[29]

GR NO. 152658

2005-08-29

LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO

CARPIO, J.

The questions of whether Simona consented to the Deed of Sale and whether the subject sale was simulated are factual in nature. The rule is factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. However, there are exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory, or when the evidence on record does not support the factual findings.[15] Because these exceptions obtain in the present case, the Court will consider these issues.

GR No. 152658

2005-07-29

LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO

CARPIO, J.

The questions of whether Simona consented to the Deed of Sale and whether the subject sale was simulated are factual in nature. The rule is factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. However, there are exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory, or when the evidence on record does not support the factual findings.[15] Because these exceptions obtain in the present case, the Court will consider these issues.

GR NO. 147245

2005-03-31

REPUBLIC v. CA

CARPIO, J.

True, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally binding on this Court. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory, or when the findings are not supported by the evidence on record.[34] These exceptions obtain in the present case.

	GR No. 200491 2014-06-09	KASAMAKA-CANLUBANG v. LAGUNA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
Time and again, this Court has reiterated the well-established rule that findings of fact by the CA are accorded the highest degree of respect, conclusive on the parties, which will generally not be disturbed on appeal.[17] Such findings are likewise binding and conclusive on this Court. Moreover, under the Rules of Court and the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.[18] The jurisdiction of this Court is, therefore, limited only to the review of errors of law allegedly committed by the CA.[19]
	GR No. 179905 2009-08-19	REPUBLIC v. NEPTUNA G. JAVIER CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The settled rule is that the jurisdiction of this Court over petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact.[35] A question of law exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts as distinguished from a question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.[36] Where the petition makes no mention of any law that was wrongly interpreted or applied by the lower court despite the requirement under Rule 45 that questions of law raised must be "distinctly set forth," there is no basis for the petition.[37]
	GR No. 162033 2009-05-08	HEIRS OF TRANQUILINO LABISTE v. HEIRS OF JOSE LABISTE TINGA, J.
The genuineness and authenticity of the Affidavit of Epifanio and the Calig-onan sa Panagpalit are beyond cavil. As we have ruled in a litany of cases, resort to judicial review of the decisions of the Court of Appeals under Rule 45 is confined only to errors of law.[20] The findings of fact by the lower court are conclusive absent any palpable error or arbitrariness.[21] The Court finds no reason to depart from this principle. Moreover, it is a long settled doctrine that findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Court. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals for these are deemed final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.[22]
	GR No. 171511 2009-03-04	RONNIE CALUAG v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court. It is not the function of this Court to weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals for these are deemed final and conclusive and may no longer be reviewed on appeal.[18]
	GR No. 160855 2008-04-16	CONCEPCION CHUA GAW v. SUY BEN CHUA and FELISA CHUA NACHURA, J.
At this juncture, we reiterate the well-entrenched doctrine that the findings of fact of the CA affirming those of the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality, by this Court. Only errors of law, not of fact, may be reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[39] A departure from the general rule may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or when the same is unsupported by the evidence on record.[40] There is no reason to apply the exception in the instant case because the findings and conclusions of the CA are in full accord with those of the trial court. These findings are buttressed by the evidence on record. Moreover, the issues and errors alleged in this petition are substantially the very same questions of fact raised by petitioner in the appellate court.
	GR NO. 169890 2007-03-12	FELICIANO ESGUERRA v. VIRGINIA TRINIDAD CARPIO MORALES, J.
Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final, conclusive and binding on this Court,[20] which is not a trier of facts,[21] hence, bereft of function under Rule 45 to examine and weigh the probative value of the evidence presented,[22] its jurisdiction being limited only to the review and revision of errors of law.[23] Albeit there are exceptions[24] to this rule, the cases at bar do not fall thereunder, there being no showing that the trial and appellate courts overlooked matters which, if considered, would alter their outcome.
	GR NO. 152335 2005-12-19	ROMEO G. LORENZO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
A departure from the general rule may be warranted where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court,[27] or when the same is unsupported by the evidence on record.[28] There is no ground to apply the exception in the instant case, however, because the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals are in full accord with those of the trial court. This Court will not assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to the appeal particularly where, as in this case, the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals coincide.[29]
	GR NO. 152658 2005-08-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
The questions of whether Simona consented to the Deed of Sale and whether the subject sale was simulated are factual in nature. The rule is factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. However, there are exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory, or when the evidence on record does not support the factual findings.[15] Because these exceptions obtain in the present case, the Court will consider these issues.
	GR No. 152658 2005-07-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
The questions of whether Simona consented to the Deed of Sale and whether the subject sale was simulated are factual in nature. The rule is factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. However, there are exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory, or when the evidence on record does not support the factual findings.[15] Because these exceptions obtain in the present case, the Court will consider these issues.
	GR NO. 147245 2005-03-31	REPUBLIC v. CA CARPIO, J.
True, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally binding on this Court. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory, or when the findings are not supported by the evidence on record.[34] These exceptions obtain in the present case.

GLORIA CHANGCO v. CA