Back

Heir of Lourdes Sabanpan vs Alberto Comorposa, et al

HEIRS OF LOURDES SAEZ SABANPAN: BERNARDO S. SABANPAN, RENE S. SABANPAN, DANILO S. SABANPAN and THELMA S. CHU; HEIRS OF ADOLFO SAEZ: MA. LUISA SAEZ TAPIZ, MA. VICTORIA SAEZ LAPITAN, MA. BELEN SAEZ and EMMANUEL SAEZ; and HEIRS OF CRISTINA SAEZ GUTIERREZ: ROY SAEZ GUTIERREZ and LUIS SAEZ JR., petitioners, vs. ALBERTO C. COMORPOSA, HERDIN C. COMORPOSA, OFELIA C. ARIEGO,[1] REMEDIOS COMORPOSA, VIRGILIO A. LARIEGO,2 BELINDA M. COMORPOSA and ISABELITA H. COMORPOSA, respondents.

G.R. No. 152807 | 2003-08-12

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

The admissibility of evidence should be distinguished from its probative value. Just because a piece of evidence is admitted does not ipso facto mean that it conclusively proves the fact in dispute.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review[2] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the August 7, 2001 Decision and the February 27, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals[3](CA) in CA-GR SP No. 60645. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the Decision dated 22 June 2000 rendered by Branch 18...