Saturday, August 8, 2015

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law; EXCEPTIONS.



JANET CARBONELL VS. JULITA A. CARBONELL-MENDES, REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VIRGILIO A. CARBONELL, G.R. No. 205681, July 01, 2015.


"x x x,

Petitioner in this case is raising a question of fact: whether the signature of respondent was forged on the Deed of Absolute Sale, which would invalidate TCT No. T-51120 issued in the name of Spouses Carbonell. The issue raised by petitioner is clearly a question of fact which requires a review of the evidence presented. This Court is not a trier of facts,1 and it is not its function to examine, review, or evaluate the evidence all over again.2

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law, thus:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari.The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.3 (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Court is generally limited to reviewing only errors of law. Nevertheless, the Court has enumerated several exceptions to this rule, such as when:

(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that,  if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.4 

Petitioner failed to show that this case falls under any of the exceptions. The finding of forgery by the RTC was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive.5 

X x x.”