“MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS” Definition in re RULE 45

When is there “Misaprehension of Facts”

In the case of BPI CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES

INC. vs. TOTAL DISTRIBUTION & LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC.,
G.R. No. 214406, February 6, 2017, this Honorable Tribunal
intoned:

xxxxx

“A close reading of the present petition shows that what this

Court is being asked to resolve is , what should prevail—the
findings of facts of the RTC, or the findings of facts of the Court
of Appeals on the alleged misapprehension of facts of the RTC.
The findings of facts of both Courts are obviously
conflicting, hence, the need for this Court to rule on the
present petition.” (emphasis supplied)

xxxxx

Excerpt from Corton vs Gonzales October 2019 Memorandum

The respondent humbly submits that, in the case at bar, there is no

misapprehension of facts since the factual findings of the trial and the
Honorable Court of Appeals with respect to the validity and genuineness
Deed of Quitclaim and Transfer of Rights dated 20 July 1999 among other
matters, is the same or consistent with each other and in complete
harmony. Hence, this Honorable Tribunal, applying the criteria stated in
the just cited case may no longer entertain the instant petition as the case
does not fall under the exception invoked by the petitioner.