By

Cabading, Luz Celine Arat

Questions Which May Be Subject Of
Judicial Review

1. Question of Law
2. Question of Fact
3. Mixed Question of Law and Fact
(Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts)
• Doubt: as to what the law is on a certain state of facts
• interpretation and scope of a law or regulation

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.
 Question of Law

General Rule:

The ruling of an administrative authority on questions of law,

while not as conclusive as its findings of fact, it is
nevertheless persuasive and given weight and carries with it
a strong presumption of correctness, especially where:

▫A system of law has been built up in one administrative

agency

▫The opinion of an administrative board in

which there are professional men is
fortified by judgment and experience.
.
Question of Law

Subject to judicial review:

• An error of the administrative agency upon a

question of law results, or is likely to result in the
miscarriage of justice, or is a material error

• Administrative action is clearly or palpably wrong

• The reason and the justice of the case is clear and

plain.
 Question of Fact

• Doubt: arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged

facts.
• the issue is if the facts of a case fall within the law or
regulation.

Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the

evidence presented, the question posed is one of
fact.
 Question of Fact

General Rule

Administrative findings of fact are conclusive upon the courts if

supported by substantial or competent evidence.

Basic assumption: absence of …

• statutory directions to the contrary
• any vital defect such as with respect
to jurisdiction and procedure
 Question of Fact
Subject to judicial review:
▫ When expressly allowed by
statute
▫ Fraud, imposition or mistake
other than error of judgment in
evaluating the evidence
▫ Error in appreciation of the
pleadings and in the
interpretation of the
documentary evidence presented
by the parties
Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion, 59 Phil 440
FACTS:
• January, 1920, Fortunato Ortua filed an application with the Bureau of Land for the purchase
of a tract of land in Camarines Sur; rejected for being a Chinese citizen
• One condition for the purchase of a track of public agricultural land provided by the Public
land law, act no. 2874, in its section 23 and 88, is that the purchaser of land shall be a citizen
of lawful age of the Philippines Island or of the United States.
• Fortunato Ortua contest that he was a Filipino citizen, born in 1885 in Lagonoy, Camarines
Sur and being a natural son of Irene Demesa a Filipina and Chinese father, but he was sent to
china to study and return to the Philippine when he was 21 years of age.
• He has always considered himself to be a Filipino, and that he has elected to remain as a
Philippine citizen.

ISSUE: If the petitioner Fortunato Ortua should be considered to be a Philippine citizen or a

Chinese citizen.

HELD:
• There has been no implied renunciation of citizenship, because the petitioner has been
domiciled in these Islands except for a short period during his infancy when he temporarily
sojourned in China for study. On the contrary, he states that he has always considered
himself to be a Filipino, and that he has elected to remain as a Philippine citizen. Therefore,
on the facts found by the Director of Lands, we hold that clear error of law resulted in not
considering petitioner a Philippine citizen and so qualified under the Public Land Law to
purchase public agricultural lands.
3. Mixed Question of Law and Fact
(Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts)
• Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact
is so involved with and depended upon a question of law as
to be in substance and effect a decision of the latter, the
Court will, order to decide the legal question, examine the
entire record, including the evidence if necessary as it does in
cases coming from the highest court of the State.
- Justice Brandeis, St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. US

• This arises where there is difficulty in

separating reviewable questions of law from
non-reviewable questions of fact.
• Under this doctrine, the more important
question assimilates the other.