Back

Lorenzo V. Lagandaon , et al. Vs. CA, et al.

Sps. LORENZO V. LAGANDAON and CECILIA T. LAGANDAON and OVERSEAS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Sps. MELITON BANOYO and ASUNCION P. BANOYO, Sps. DEMETRIO B. BATAYOLA and ANITA A. BATAYOLA, BONIFACIO VASQUEZ, Sps. ROMEO M. GOMEZ and ESTER M. GOMEZ, AURORA GOMEZ, Sps. CARLOS V. DAVID and MANUELA C. DAVID, Sps. LEONIDO D. BONGCO and FE V. BONGCO, Sps. RAFAEL S. SOLIDUM and LUCENDA M. SOLIDUM, Sps. RAYMUNDO SITJAR and LUCIA SITJAR and Sps. BENJAMIN V. VIVA and GILDA VIVA, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 102526-31 | 1998-05-21

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J:

Questions of fact, as a general rule, may not be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45. This is especially true where - as in this case - such questions have already been disposed of by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. The failure of the petitioner to justify a departure from this rule warrants the dismissal of the petition.

The Case

This doctrine is used by the Court in denying this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 promulgated on August 30, 1991 in CA-G.R Nos. 26671-26676, which disposed as...