With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". estat rate issues presented by MPLC, i.e., whether the trial court erred in determining that the TT government authorized Antonio to enter and occupy Lot 303, and in determining that the TT government intended to issue Antonio a homestead permit to Lots 303 and 304. 7 MPLC framed this issue as “[w]hether the trial court erred in granting [Cabrera] additional land as compensation for the taking of Lot Nos. 303 and 304 when neither party was able to prove that [Cabrera] ever had an ownership interest in said lots.” Brief for Appellant MPLC at 1. 8 MPLC framed this issue as “[w]hether the trial court erred in granting [Cabrera] land in addition to that which was described in [Cabrera’s] original homestead permit.” Id. 9 Cf. Kelley v. Harsch, 161 S.W.2d 563, 567 (Tex. Ct. App. 1942) (<HOLDING>). 10 Cf. In re Estate of Mueilemar, 1 N.M.I.

A: holding it is a question of fact
B: holding that the mixed question of exigent circumstance is reviewable de novo as a question of law
C: holding that probable cause determination presents a mixed question of law and fact
D: holding that where latent ambiguity exists regarding identity of real property described in a will question as to what testatrix intended to devise is a mixed question of law and fact
D.