JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45

As a general rule, in petitions for review, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing questions of law which involves no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.  The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; it is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. (Heirs of Marcelino Cabal v. Cabal, G.R. No. 153625, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 301, 312, citing Hanopol v. Shoemart, Incorporated, G.R. Nos. 137774 & 148185, October 4, 2002, 390 SCRA 439, 447; St. Michael’s Institute v. Santos, G.R. No. 145280, December 4, 2001, 371 SCRA 383, 396; Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158922, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 358, 364.) x x x x  Accordingly, findings of fact of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are generally conclusive on this Court. 

             

             Nonetheless, jurisprudence has recognized certain exceptions to the general rule that findings of the fact by the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by the Supreme Court. One such exception is when such findings are not sustained by the evidence. Sarmiento v. Yu, G.R. No. 141431, August 3, 2006, 497 SCRA 513, 517.

               

                 Another is when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts or overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Estate of Edward Miller Grimm v. Estate of Charles Parsons and Patrick C. Parsons, G.R. No. 159810, October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 67, 75-76, citing Sampayan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156360, January 14, 2005, 448 SCRA 220, 229.) (Heirs of Margarito Pabaus vs. Heirs of Amanda Yutiamco, G.R. No. 164356, July 27, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).