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.”
