Decision 21 G.R. No. 215988 under Rule 45, 99 as factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. It is not this Court's function to weigh all over again evidence that were already considered in the lower courts. 100 However, these rules do admit of 10 exceptions, as listed in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.: 101 (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures ... ; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible ... ; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion ... ; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts ... ; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting ... ; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee ... ; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court ... ; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based ... ; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents ... ; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record .... 102 (Citations omitted) Pascual v. Burgos 103 instructs that parties must prove with convincing evidence that their case clearly falls under the exceptions to the rule: Parties praying that this court review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals must demonstrate and prove that the case clearly falls under the exceptions to the rule. They have the burden of proving to this court that a review of the factual findings is necessary. Mere assertion and claim that the case falls under the exceptions do not suffice. 104 Here, petitioners claim that the issuance of a zoning clearance was tainted with irregularity, maintaining that a regional mall like SM City Baguio and its Expansion Project should not have been allowed in a lowdensity commercial zone like Luneta Hill. Rather, the mall belonged in a high-density commercial zone, while the parking building belonged in a medium-density commercial zone. 105 Furthermore, petitioners stress that private respondents were not authorized to cut and earth-ball the trees as they failed to obtain a separate 99 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. I. 100 Quintas v. Nicolas, 736 Phil. 438, 451 (2014) [Per J. Velasco, Third Division]. 269 Phil. 225 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division]. Id. at 232. 776 Phil. 167 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]. Id. at 184. Rollo, pp. 3191-3195. 101 102 103 104 105 I