This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-08-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is clarified, however, that the absence of a provision in the old and new Civil Codes cannot be construed as giving a license to just any person to bring an action to declare the absolute nullity of a marriage. According to Carlos v. Sandoval,[14] the plaintiff must still be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest.[15] Thus, only the party who can demonstrate a "proper interest" can file the action.[16] Interest within the meaning of the rule means material interest, or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere incidental interest. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.[17] | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Illuminating on this point is Amor-Catalan v. Court of Appeals,[28] where the Court held:True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents were married, or even in the Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however, only a party who can demonstrate "proper interest" can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of action. Thus, in Niñal v. Badayog, the Court held that the children have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights. | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court does not agree. No evidence was presented either by Freezinhot or petitioner to substantiate the claim of the latter that the project was about to be completed when respondent took over the project. Petitioner's claim is mere allegation which is not supported by any competent proof. Settled is the rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not an evidence.[27] | |||||