What is the difference between questions of law and questions of fact?

Knowing the difference between questions of law and questions of facts is very important. The kind of question that a lawyer would want to raise before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court would determine the kind of pleadings and manner of filing.

A distinction between questions of law and questions of fact may not be defined by our rules of procedure or by our laws. However, our jurisprudence has the answer to our query. Read on.

G.R. No. 190994 

September 7, 2011

TONGONAN HOLDINGSand DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, Petitioner

- versus -

ATTY. FRANCISCO ESCAÑO, JR., Respondent.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Malabanan, 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 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.

What is the difference between Rule 45 and Rule 65?

A common question between law students and law practitioners alike, "What is the difference between Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari) and Rule 65 (Certiorari)?"

G.R. No. 168394             

October 6, 2008

AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA), represented by JOSEPHINE B. OMICTIN,petitioner, 

vs.

LORETO G. NICOLAS and OLIMPIO CRUZ, respondents.

Before We rule on the issues, there is a need to discuss the propriety of petitioner's appeal. As aptly indicated in its pleading, this is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, a perusal of the errors ascribed by petitioner to the CA shows that they all pertain to allegations of abuse of discretion. In fact, petitioner clearly stated that "all three errors constitute abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction."

This Court has consistently elaborated on the difference between Rule 45 and 65 petitions. A petition for review oncertiorari under Rule 45 is an ordinary appeal. It is a continuation of the case from the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC, or other courts. The petition must only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth and discussed.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action. It seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one in which the act complained of was issued by the court, officer, or quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction. The purpose of the remedy of certiorari is to annul void proceedings; prevent unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority; and provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice.

Applying the foregoing, errors in the appreciation of evidence may only be reviewed by appeal and not by certioraribecause they do not involve any jurisdictional ground. Likewise, errors of law do not involve jurisdiction and may only be corrected by ordinary appeal.