This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The OSG argues that the issues raised by Chua involve questions of fact which are not within the province of the present petition for review on certiorari. The Court, however, upon perusal of the petition, finds that the issues raised and the arguments advanced by Chua in support thereof, concern questions of law. "Jurisprudence dictates that there is a 'question of law' when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts or circumstances; on the other hand, there is a 'question of fact' when the issue raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test for determining whether the supposed error was one of 'law' or 'fact' is not the appellation given by the parties raising the same; rather, it is whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is one of fact. In other words, where there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is a question of law. However, if the question posed requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relationship to each other, the issue is factual."[31] | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is settled that the final conclusions on the proper amount of just compensation can only be made after due ascertainment of the requirements set forth under R.A. 8974 and not merely based on the declarations of the parties.[32] Since these requirements were not satisfactorily complied with, and in the absence of reliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value of the condemned property, remand of this case to the trial court is in order. | |||||