This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-29 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Notwithstanding the preceding discussion, the Court finds that Rovira cannot claim a better right to the property because she is not a buyer in good faith. Initially, it must be stated that the determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue, which generally cannot be determined by the Court in a petition for review filed under Rule 45.[17] The rule, nonetheless, admits of exceptions, some of which are when the judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts or when the CA overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[18] A review of this case shows that the CA failed to appreciate the relevance of certain undisputed facts, thus giving rise to its erroneous conclusion that Rovira has a better right to the property in dispute. | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A question of law exists when the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. A question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. 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. Thus, 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.[28] | |||||