This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To be recoverable, moral damages must be capable of proof and must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages.[28] Yet, nothing was adduced here to justify the grant of moral damages. What we have was only the allegation on moral damages, with the complaint stating that the respondents had been forced to litigate, and that they had suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety and wounded feelings from the petitioner's refusal to restore the possession of the land in question to them.[29] The allegation did not suffice, for allegation was not proof of the facts alleged. | |||||
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Fidel v. Court of Appeals[103] (Fidel case), therein respondents, the heirs of the late Vicente Espineli (Vicente) from his first marriage, instituted an action to annul the sale of Vicente's property to therein petitioners, the spouses Fidel. The subject property was sold to petitioners by Vicente's heirs from his second marriage. Even though one's legitimacy can only be questioned in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, the Court held that it was necessary to pass upon respondents' relationship to Vicente in the action for annulment of sale so as to determine respondents' legal rights to the subject property. In fact, the issue of whether respondents are Vicente's heirs was squarely raised by petitioners in their Pre-Trial Brief. Hence, petitioners were estopped from assailing the ruling of the trial court on respondents' status. | |||||