This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-19 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to another or by which an undue and unconscionable advantage is taken of another.[26] It cannot be over-emphasized that fraud is a question of fact which cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging fraud.[27] Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non que negat, otherwise stated, "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove."[28] | |||||
|
2012-10-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that in petitions for review under Rule 45 only questions of law may be raised, unless the petitioner shows that the case falls under the recognized exceptions. In Makati Sports Club, Inc. v. Cheng,[28] we explained, thus: At the outset, we note that this recourse is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 1 of the Rule, such a petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly alleged in the appropriate pleading. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides for a given set of facts drawn from the evidence presented. Stated differently, there should be nothing in dispute as to the state of facts; the issue to be resolved is merely the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the said facts. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the probative value of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the query requires a reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, then the issue is necessarily factual.[29] (Emphases supplied, citation omitted.) | |||||