This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-03-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The one-year period of redemption provided in Act No. 3135, as amended, is only directory and can be extended by agreement of the parties.[32] When the parties voluntarily agree to extend the redemption period, the concept of legal redemption is converted into conventional redemption.[33] However, two (2) requisites must be established, to wit: (a) voluntary agreement of the parties to extend the redemption period; and (b) the debtor's commitment to pay the redemption price on a fixed date.[34] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that, as in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue.[19] Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense.[20] This principle holds true especially when the latter has had no opportunity to present evidence because of a default order,[21] as in the present case. The petitioner, as plaintiff below, is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for.[22] The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint.[23] Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief.[24] Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[25] In addition, this Court, in Otero v. Tan,[26] further elucidated that: While it may be said that by defaulting, the defendant leaves himself at the mercy of the court, the rules nevertheless see to it that any judgment against him must be in accordance with the evidence required by law. The evidence of the plaintiff, presented in the defendant's absence, cannot be admitted if it is basically incompetent. Although the defendant would not be in a position to object, elementary justice requires that only legal evidence should be considered against him. If the same should prove insufficient to justify a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint must be dismissed. And if a favorable judgment is justifiable, it cannot exceed in amount or be different in kind from what is prayed for in the complaint.[27] | |||||
|
2012-07-04 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Preponderance of evidence is [defined as] the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term 'greater weight of the evidence' or 'greater weight of the credible evidence'. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto."[30] Contrary to Emilia's interpretation, a determination of this quantum of evidence does not need the presentation of evidence by both parties. As correctly reasoned out by the CA, Emilia's interpretation is absurd as this will only encourage defendants to waive their presentation of evidence in order for them to be absolved from civil liability for lack of preponderance of evidence. Besides, Emilia should note that even when a respondent does not present evidence, a complainant in a civil case is nevertheless burdened to substantiate his or her claims by preponderance of evidence before a court may rule on the reliefs prayed for by the latter. Settled is the principle that "parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent."[31] | |||||
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners likewise allege that the heirs of Rosauro and Angelina's failure to answer the complaint before the RTC is an admission of the allegations in Pedro's complaint. The argument does not persuade Us. In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent. This principle equally holds true, even if the defendant had not been given the opportunity to present evidence because of a default order. The extent of the relief that may be granted can only be as much as has been alleged and provedwith preponderant evidence required under Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.[24] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We reiterate the well-entrenched principle that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not, as a rule, undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties. A number of exceptions[19] have nevertheless been recognized.[20] Indeed, the difference between the findings of the trial and appellate courts, leading to entirely disparate dispositions, is reason enough for this Court to review the evidence in this case.[21] | |||||
|
2008-12-08 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| If petitioner is confident that the complaint lacks merit, then it need not worry because once the defendant is declared in default, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. Favorable relief can be granted only after it has been ascertained that it is warranted by the evidence offered and the facts proven by the presenting party.[33] In any event, petitioner, even if declared in default, is not deprived of his right to appeal the decision of the trial court.[34] | |||||