Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Facts:
Manuel Go filed a BP 22 and civil damages against the petitioner Villanueva. The check
supposedly represented payment of loans previously obtained by petitioner from private
respondent as capital for the formers mining and fertilizer business.
RTC of Cebu ruled against Villanueva. The latter appealed to CA but affirmed the decision of
RTC with partial medication. Petitioner filed appeal to SC raising same issues.
ISSUE: Whether the SC can still admit evidence?
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the petition should be denied.
Time and again it has been ruled that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from
the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed
by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive.
Court is not dutybound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered
in the proceedings below. The rule, however, admits of the following exceptions: (1) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave abuse
of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of
facts; (5) when the findings 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 of the Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence on record.
redemption period had already expired and the need for a bond already dispensed with, possession
could not yet be given to petitioner until the ownership is consolidated and a new transfer certificate
of title issued in its name.
ISSUES:
a. Whether consolidation of title is necessary before possession may be automatically given to
petitioner?
b. Whether the issue needs to be resolved is question of law or of fact?
HELD:
Yes. After the consolidation of title in the buyers name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the
property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right.
T]his Court has differentiated a question of law from a question of fact. A question of law arises
when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact
when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law,
the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the
given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of
fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether
the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in
which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.
Here, no question of law is involved, for it is clear that petitioner has the right to possession once it
has established that ownership has been consolidated in its name. Consolidation is essentially
factual in nature, as it requires the presentation of evidence. Thus, the case was ordered to be
remanded to RTC for the reception of evidence.