Scribd
Upload
390 views2 pages

A Petition For Review On Certiorari Under Rule 45 of The Rules of Court Should Cover Only Questions of Law

The document discusses the exceptions to the general rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should only raise questions of law. It notes that the petitioner in this case raised a question of fact regarding the alleged forgery of a signature, which appellate courts do not re-examine. It then lists 11 exceptions where the court may review questions of fact, but finds the petitioner did not show this case meets any of the exceptions since the lower courts affirmed the finding of forgery.

Uploaded by

Lean Manuel Paragas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
390 views2 pages

A Petition For Review On Certiorari Under Rule 45 of The Rules of Court Should Cover Only Questions of Law

The document discusses the exceptions to the general rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should only raise questions of law. It notes that the petitioner in this case raised a question of fact regarding the alleged forgery of a signature, which appellate courts do not re-examine. It then lists 11 exceptions where the court may review questions of fact, but finds the petitioner did not show this case meets any of the exceptions since the lower courts affirmed the finding of forgery.

Uploaded by

Lean Manuel Paragas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

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.”

You might also like