Argument: An Appeal is not the proper remedy to question the validity of the marriage license and certificate.

Facts: Mandamus QC RTC rendered a decision granting the Petition and directing the QC Civil Registrar to
register the certificate of Monique and Joey and to furnish the PSA with a copy of the same
Petitioner wants to question Decision on pure questions of law
Pertinent provisions:
Rule 45, Section 6. Review discretionary. A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will
be granted only when there are special and important reasons thereof. The following, while neither controlling nor
fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the
Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable
decisions of the Supreme Court; or
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of
supervision. (4a)
Pertinent jurisprudence:
On Questions of Law

Republic v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 169067, October 6, 2010: And in Leoncio v. De Vera,25 this Court has
differentiated 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.26
Republic v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 169067, October 6, 2010: Here, petitioners appeal does not only involve a
question of law. Aside from the trial courts ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint, petitioner
likewise questioned the other basis for the trial courts ruling, which refers to previously decided cases
allegedly upholding with finality the ownership of the Malabanans over the disputed property. As correctly
argued by petitioner, the question of whether the ownership of the Malabanans has in fact been
sustained with finality is factual in nature as it requires the presentation of evidence.
Go v. Looyuko, G.R. No. 196529, July 1, 2013: Petitioner William, in his pleadings, argues that the QC RTC
correctly appreciated the evidence he presented to prove Jimmys co-ownership, reiterating that his
evidence shows that the actual owner is not respondent Looyuko but Noahs Ark, and that he was allowed to
use the property as part of his benefits and privileges as its Chief of Staff. He further argues that the CA
erred in holding that the ejectment case could proceed without resolving the issue of ownership, and posits
that the issue of ownership was properly raised and the MeTC, in fact, addressed such issue. He contends
that he is not attacking the validity of the certificate of title and that a certificate of title does not foreclose the
fact that the same may be under co-ownership not mentioned in the certificate. He also argues that
respondent Looyuko failed to prove that he had prior physical possession of the property before he was
unlawfully deprived of it, which is fundamental in an ejectment case.
o SC: The petition is bereft of merit. It is apparent from the arguments of William that he is calling for
the Court to reevaluate the evidence presented by the parties. A petition for review under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable by
this Court. The issue to be resolved must be limited to determining what the law is on a certain set
of facts. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact.5 William
is, therefore, raising questions of facts beyond the ambit of the Courts review.

Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corporation v. Cathedral Heights Building Complex Association Inc., G.R.
No. 173881, December 1, 2010: The determination of whether there exists a perfected contract of sale is
essentially a question of fact.