Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Chelsea Santos 11106603 DOCULMG

References:
Vda. de Arroyo v. El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo, 132 Phil. 9, 12-13 (1968);
Avon Cosmetics Incorporated v. Luna, G.R. No. 153674, 20 December 2006: To be sure,
questions of law are those that involve doubts or controversies on what the law is on certain
state of facts; and questions of fact, on the other hand, are those in which there is doubt or
difference as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. One test, it has been held, 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 will be a question of fact.
People v. Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, 12 May 2000, 332 SCRA 99: The issue of insanity is
a question of fact for insanity is a condition of the mind, not susceptible of the usual means of
proof. As no man would know what goes on in the mind of another, the state or condition of
a persons mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior. Establishing the insanity
of an accused requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately
acquainted with appellant, or who has rational basis to conclude that appellant was insane
based on the witness own perception of appellant, or who is qualified as an expert, such as
a psychiatrist.
Sampayan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156360, January 14, 2005, 448 SCRA 220; The
Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850, April 28, 2004,
428 SCRA 79; Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R.
No. 139437, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 542, 549; Nokom v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 140043, July 18, 2000, 336 SCRA 97, 110; Sps. Sta. Maria v. Court
of Appeals, 349 Phil. 275, 282-283 (1998): Nonetheless, the Court has recognized several
exceptions to the rule, including: (a) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) when in making its
findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary
to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) when the findings are contrary
to those of the trial court; (h) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (j) when the findings of
fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
on record; and (k) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
PEDRO ANGELES , REPRESENTED BY ADELINA T. ANGELES, ATTORNEY-IN FACT, PETITIONER,
VERSUS ESTELITA B. PASCUAL, MARIA THERESA PASCUAL, NERISSA PASCUAL, IMELDA PASCUAL,
MA. LAARNI PASCUAL AND EDWIN PASCUAL, RESPONDENTS., G.R. NO. 157150, 2011
SEPTEMBER 21, 1S: Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that the petition for
review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. In
appeal by certiorari, therefore, only questions of law may be raised, because the Supreme Court
is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence
presented by the contending parties during the trial. The resolution of factual issues is the
function of lower courts, whose findings thereon are received with respect and are binding on
the Supreme Court subject to certain exceptions.[FNCB Finance v. Estavillo, G.R. No. 93394,
Chelsea Santos 11106603 DOCULMG
December 20, 1990, 192 SCRA 514, 517.] A question, to be one of law, must not involve an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.
There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law
is on certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to
the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.[II Herrera, Remedial Law, 2000 Edition, p. 648; citing
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1979 Edition.]
ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA, PETITIONER, VERSUS FE VDA. DE TE, REPRESENTED BY HER
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FAUSTINO CASTAEDA, RESPONDENTS., G.R. NO. 175910, 2009 JULY 30,
3RD DIVISION: There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
law is on certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value
of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a question of
fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply
put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn
therefrom is correct, is a question of law. [Cucueco v. Court of Appeals, 484 Phil. 254, 264
(2004)]
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND THE FACT FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
REPRESENTED BY DIR. AGAPITO B. ROSALES, PETITIONERS, VS. LILIA B. ORGANO, RESPONDENT.,
G.R. NO. 149549, 2004 FEB 26, 1ST DIVISION: There is a question of law in a given case when
doubt or disagreement arises as to which law pertains to a certain state of facts; and there is a
question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or the falsity of the facts alleged.[Spouses
Caoili v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 122, September 14, 1999.]
G.R. No. 183926 : March 29, 2010 GENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE, Petitioner, v. LUIS ESTEBAN
LATORRE, Respondent: The first mode of appeal, governed by Rule 41, is brought to the Court of
Appeals (CA) on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of
appeal, covered by Rule 42, is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions
of fact and law. The third mode of appeal, provided in Rule 45, is filed with the Supreme Court
only on questions of law. 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.23 Our ruling in Velayo-Fong v. Velayo (G.R. No. 155488, December 6,
2006, 510 SCRA 320.) is instructive: 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. (G.R. No. 155488, December
6, 2006, 510 SCRA 329-330.)
Chelsea Santos 11106603 DOCULMG
G.R. No. 163271 : January 15, 2010: In Manila Bay Club Corporation v. Court of Appeals,(315
Phil. 805, 820 (1995))cralaw we held that for a question to be one of law, it must involve no
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is pertaining to
a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as
to the truth or the falsity of alleged facts.(315 Phil. 805, 820 (1995))
G.R. No. 184193 : March 29, 2010: Dimaranan vs. Heirs of Sposes: This Court had repeatedly
clarified the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. A question of law
exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to
a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value
of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact, on
the other hand, exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts
or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of
the witnesses, the existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as
their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. (Altres v.
Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, 10 December 2008, 573 SCRA 583, 598)
G.R. No. 184116, June 19, 2013 Century Iron Works vs. Banas: 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 question 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 (Leoncio v. De Vera, G.R. No.
176842, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 180, 184, citing Elenita S. Binay, in her capacity as Mayor
of the City of Makati, Mario Rodriguez and Priscilla Ferrolino v. Emerita Odea, G.R. No. 163683,
June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 248). 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. (Leoncio v. De Vera, G.R. No.
176842, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 180, 184, citing Elenita S. Binay, in her capacity as Mayor
of the City of Makati, Mario Rodriguez and Priscilla Ferrolino v. Emerita Odea, G.R. No. 163683,
June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 248)
G.R. No. 190994, September 7, 2011, Tigonans Holdings vs. Escano: In Republic of the
Philippines v. Malabanan,(G.R. No. 169067, October 6, 2010) this Court distinguished 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
Chelsea Santos 11106603 DOCULMG
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 (Id., citing Leoncio v. De
Vera, G.R. No. 176842, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 180, 184, citing Binay v. Odea, G.R. No.
163683, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 248, 255-256, further citing Velayo-Fong v. Velayo, G.R. No.
155488, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 320, 329-330.)
G.R. No. 169067, October 6, 2010, Republic of the Philippines vs. Malabanan: And in Leoncio v.
De Vera,(G.R. No. 176842, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 180.) this 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 (Id. at 184, citing Binay v.
Odea, G.R. No. 163683, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 248, 255-256, further citing Velayo-Fong v.
Velayo, G.R. No. 155488, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 320, 329-330.)
G.R. No. 48411, February 24, 1948, Elks Club vs. Rovira: (PERFECTO, J., concurring and
dissenting) The Supreme Court is not authorized to limit the jurisdiction conferred to it by law.
Otherwise, it will invade the legislative field exclusively within the power and jurisdiction of
Congress. Furthermore, to limit our jurisdiction to questions of law in appeal against the
decisions or awards made by the Court of Industrial Relations, might be interpreted as a judicial
fiat intended to arbitrarily diminish the work of the Supreme Court. The labor controversies
under the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial relations may involve only questions of fact, and
to deprive the losing party the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, because no question of law
may be raised in appeal, is to violate the right of appeal granted by Commonwealth Act No. 103.
Question of Law Question of Fact
When there is doubt as
to what the law is on a
certain fact
Must not involve an
examination of the
probative value of the
evidence presented by
the litigants
Resolution must solely
rest on what the law
provides on the given set
of circumstances
According to Justice
Iacobucci: Questions of
law are questions about
what the correct legal
test is; questions of fact
are questions about
what actually took place
between the parties; and
questions of mixed law
and fact are questions
about whether the facts
satisfy the legal tests.
When doubt or
difference as to the truth
or falseness of alleged
facts
Involves review and
examination of evidence
Ex. Insanity not
susceptible to proof
when the query invites
calibration of the whole
evidence considering
mainly the credibility of
Chelsea Santos 11106603 DOCULMG
Whether the appellate
court can determine the
issue raised without
reviewing or evaluation
the evidence

British Columbia Court of
Appeals: "The existence
and nature of a duty is a
question of law.
Whether a duty has
been breached is a
question of fact."

the witnesses, the
existence and relevance
of specific surrounding
circumstances, as well as
their relation to each
other and to the whole,
and the probability of
the situation


Stephen A. Weiner (1966), The Civil Jury Trial and the Law-Fact Distiction, California Law Review Volume
54 Issue 5 also available at http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2888&context=californialawreview last
accessed on July 7, 2014
issues which all courts would agree should
be decided by the judge (8)
that law involves the formulation in general
terms of principles potentially applicable to
many civil cases is undoubtedly its most
significant aspect for present purposes (11)
delimit those issues which clearly fall
within the province of the jury.
what acts or events have actually occurred,
or what conditions have actually existed
in malice or in good faith



References:
1. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 SCR 748, 1997 CanLII
385 (SCC), <http://canlii.ca/t/1fr34> retrieved on 2014-07-07
2. Wilson v. Clarica Life Insurance Co., 2002 BCCA 502 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/5jd8> retrieved
on 2014-07-07
3. Stephen A. Weiner, The Civil Jury Trial and the Law-Fact Distinction, 54 CAL. L. REV. 1867 (1966).
Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol54/iss5/1 last accessed
July 7, 2014
4. http://www.robinson.com.au/monoartpapers/papers/MAR-
Paper%20Admin%20Law%20Practice%20and%20Procedure-
Appeals%20and%20Questions%20of%20Law%201%20June%202012.pdf last accessed July 7,
2014