This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Oropesa v. Oropesa[111] where this court affirmed the dismissal of the case on demurrer to evidence due to petitioner's non-submission of the Formal Offer of Evidence,[112] demurrer to evidence was defined as: . . . "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue." We have also held that a demurrer to evidence "authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part, as he would ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff's evidence shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought."[113] (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2014-10-08 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the Court emphasizes that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The Court is not a trier of facts. It is long settled that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, will not be disturbed by this Court. 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 evidence on record.[19] | |||||