"x x x.
It is a well-settled rule that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the scope of the Court’s judicial review of decisions of the CA is generally confined only to errors of law; questions of fact are not entertained as the Court is not a trier of facts.18
Observably, the issues raised by the petitioner involve factual matters which were already evaluated by the courts a quoin determining who, between him and the respondents is entitled to the subject land’s possession de facto. Following the above-cited rule, it isbeyond the Court’s jurisdiction to re-examine the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA regarding the veracity and sufficiency of the proofs of ownership and right of possession respectively submitted by the parties. They are issues of fact which cannot be passed upon by the Court as it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. Even if the Court were to re-examine the records and consider this case as an exceptional circumstance inview of the conflicting conclusion reached by the MTCC,19 the Court, nevertheless, finds no reversible error in the assailed ruling of the CA.
x x x.
Observably, the issues raised by the petitioner involve factual matters which were already evaluated by the courts a quoin determining who, between him and the respondents is entitled to the subject land’s possession de facto. Following the above-cited rule, it isbeyond the Court’s jurisdiction to re-examine the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA regarding the veracity and sufficiency of the proofs of ownership and right of possession respectively submitted by the parties. They are issues of fact which cannot be passed upon by the Court as it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. Even if the Court were to re-examine the records and consider this case as an exceptional circumstance inview of the conflicting conclusion reached by the MTCC,19 the Court, nevertheless, finds no reversible error in the assailed ruling of the CA.
x x x.
G.R. No. 199448 November 12, 2014
ROLANDO S. ABADILLA, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
SPOUSES BONIFACIO P. OBRERO and BERNABELA N. OBRERO,Respondents.
