Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF JOSE LIM v. JULIET VILLA LIM

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 204729 2014-08-06	LOURDES SUITES v. NOEMI BINARAO CARPIO, J.
The remedies discussed in Macaslang are those which are available to the defendant. The courts are not precluded from dismissing a case for lack of cause of action (i.e. insufficiency of evidence). In civil cases, courts must determine if the plaintiff was able to prove his case by a preponderance of evidence which is defined as "x x x the probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto."[21]
	GR No. 181598 2013-03-06	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ARNEL A. BERNARDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts.[9] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the findings set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record.[10]
	GR No. 184528 2012-04-25	NILO OROPESA v. CIRILO OROPESA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is axiomatic that, as a general rule, "only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts."[20] We only take cognizance of questions of fact in certain exceptional circumstances;[21] however, we find them to be absent in the instant case. It is also long settled that "factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, will not be disturbed by this Court. As a rule, such findings by the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect, and are deemed final and conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record."[22] We therefore adopt the factual findings of the lower court and the Court of Appeals and rule that the grant of respondent's demurrer to evidence was proper under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar.
	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[37] [Emphasis supplied]
	GR No. 150284 2010-11-22	SPS. ELISEO SEVILLA AND ERNA SEVILLA v. CA MENDOZA, J.
The Court finds no solid reason to disturb the findings of the CA. Verily, the evaluation and calibration of the evidence necessarily involves consideration of factual issues - an exercise that is not appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule provides that the parties may raise only questions of law, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, the Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence introduced in, and considered by, the tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1)when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[5]