Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MILESTONE REALTY v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 184369 2013-10-23	HEIRS OF FLORENTINO QUILO v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES-DAGUPAN BRANCH SERENO, C.J.
The determination of whether a person is an agricultural tenant is basically a question of fact.[58] As a general rule, questions of fact are not proper in a petition filed under Rule 45. Corollary to this rule, findings of fact of the CA are final, conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal, provided that they are borne out by the records or based on substantial evidence.[59] However, as we held in Adriano v. Tanco,[60] when the findings of facts of the DARAB and the CA contradict each other, it is crucial to go through the evidence and documents on record as an exception[61] to the rule.
	GR No. 179643 2013-06-03	ERNESTO L. NATIVIDAD v. FERNANDO MARIANO BRION, J.
As a preliminary matter, we reiterate the rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law.[34] A question that invites a review of the factual findings of the lower tribunals or bodies is beyond the scope of this Court's power of review[35] and generally justifies the dismissal of the petition.
	GR NO. 154101 2006-03-10	EJR CRAFTS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. It is not the task of an appellate court to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the administrative body and to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency in respect of sufficiency of evidence. Furthermore, as a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court, provided they are borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence.[8] It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[9]
	GR NO. 151333 2005-09-20	SPS. NATALIO AND FELICIDAD SALONGA v. SPS. MANUEL AND NENITA CONCEPCION AND FLORENCIA REALTY CORPORATION
The issues in this case are factual. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, the reason being that the Court is not a trier of facts; hence, is not to re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence on record. Furthermore, the conclusions of the CA on appeal are binding and conclusive on the Court, unless there is a convincing showing that the appellate court ignored, misapplied or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, would warrant the modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[39]
	GR NO. 151895 2005-02-16	BANK OF COMMERCE v. TERESITA S. SERRANO QUISUMBING, J.
Incidentally, petitioner urged this Court to review the factual findings of the case due to contradictory findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals arising from misappreciation of facts by the Court of Appeals. Such plea must be rejected. It is a well established rule that in an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be raised,[19] and we find petitioner's averments insufficient to disregard this well-entrenched rule. This Court does not, of itself, automatically delve into the record of a case to determine the facts anew where there is disagreement between the findings of fact by the trial court and by the Court of Appeals. When the disagreement is merely on the probative value of the evidence, i.e., which is more credible of two versions, we limit our review to only ascertaining if the findings of the Court of Appeals are supported by the records. So long as the findings of the appellate court are consistent with and not palpably contrary to the evidence on record, we shall decline to make a review on the probative value of such evidence. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, and not those of the trial court, will be considered final and conclusive, even in this Court.[20] In this case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the foregoing factual findings of the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 147863 2004-08-13	RINGOR v. RINGOR QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, petitioners urge this Court to review the factual findings of the case. It is a well-established principle, however, that in an appeal via certiorari only questions of law may be raised.[38] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals especially when not at variance with those of the trial court may not, generally be reviewed by this Court. The findings of fact of the lower court are conclusive on us, absent any palpable error or patent arbitrariness. In this case, we find no tenable route but to leave the findings of fact of the lower courts untouched, and move on to the resolution of the other issues.
	GR No. 144134 2003-11-11	MARIVELES SHIPYARD CORP. v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
On the issue of the propriety of the award of overtime pay despite the alleged lack of proof thereof, suffice it to state that such involves a determination and evaluation of facts which cannot be done in a petition for review. Well established is the rule that in an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[32]
	GR No. 144018 2003-06-23	FAR EAST BANK v. TOMAS TOH QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner avers that private respondent's claim of old age was unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. In essence, petitioner wants us to re-evaluate this factual issue. Needless to stress, such re-examination is improper in a petition for review on certiorari. Here, only questions of law should be raised.[23] Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, bind this Court and are entitled to utmost respect.[24] No cogent reason having been given for us to depart therefrom we shall stand by this salutary rule.
	GR No. 142435 2003-04-30	ESTELITA BURGOS LIPAT v. PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
As a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court, provided they are borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence.[26] As noted earlier, BEC merely succeeded BET as petitioners' alter ego; hence, petitioners' mortgaged property must be held liable for the subsequent loans and credit lines of BEC.