This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In such a situation, whoever alleges co-ownership carried the burden of proof to confirm such fact. To establish co-ownership, therefore, it became imperative for the petitioner to offer proof of her actual contributions in the acquisition of property. Her mere allegation of co-ownership, without sufficient and competent evidence, would warrant no relief in her favor. As the Court explained in Saguid v. Court of Appeals:[25] | |||||
|
2008-09-17 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. 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. This applies with more vigor where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief. Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[58] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, if respondent fails to prove the validity of both the divorce and the marriage, the applicable provision would be Article 148 of the Family Code which has filled the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil Code by expressly regulating the property relations of couples living together as husband and wife but are incapacitated to marry.[78] In Saguid v. Court of Appeals,[79] we held that even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of property occurred before the Family Code took effect, Article 148 governs.[80] The Court described the property regime under this provision as follows:The regime of limited co-ownership of property governing the union of parties who are not legally capacitated to marry each other, but who nonetheless live together as husband and wife, applies to properties acquired during said cohabitation in proportion to their respective contributions. Co-ownership will only be up to the extent of the proven actual contribution of money, property or industry. Absent proof of the extent thereof, their contributions and corresponding shares shall be presumed to be equal. | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Here, although the adulterous cohabitation of the parties commenced in 1983, or way before the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1998, Article 148 thereof applies because this provision was intended precisely to fill up the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil Code.[12] Before Article 148 of the Family Code was enacted, there was no provision governing property relations of couples living in a state of adultery or concubinage. Hence, even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of the property occurred before the Family Code took effect, Article 148 governs.[13] | |||||
|
2006-03-21 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| As in other civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence.[19] Moreover, parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent.[20] This principle holds true, especially when the latter has had no opportunity to present evidence because of a default order. Needless to say, the extent of the relief that may be granted can only be as much as has been alleged and proved[21] with preponderant evidence required under Section 1 of Rule 133. | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that actual or compensatory damages is not presumed, but must be duly proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered and on evidence of the actual amount thereof.[29] Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[30] | |||||
|
2004-03-03 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The concept of citizenship had undergone changes over the centuries. In the 18th century, the concept was limited, by and large, to civil citizenship, which established the rights necessary for individual freedom, such as rights to property, personal liberty and justice.[9] Its meaning expanded during the 19th century to include political citizenship, which encompassed the right to participate in the exercise of political power.[10] The 20th century saw the next stage of the development of social citizenship, which laid emphasis on the right of the citizen to economic well-being and social security.[11] The idea of citizenship has gained expression in the modern welfare state as it so developed in Western Europe. An ongoing and final stage of development, in keeping with the rapidly shrinking global village, might well be the internationalization of citizenship.[12] | |||||
|
2003-12-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Contrary to petitioners' protestations, we squarely resolved the core issues of fraud and want of jurisdiction afflicting the reconstitution of respondent's title. While we held that the issue of the validity of respondent's title is factual which cannot be reviewed on appeal, nevertheless, we have answered each ground raised by petitioner in assailing respondent's title.[7] Needless to stress, mere allegations of fraud are not enough.[8] Fraud is never presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence,[9] mere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate.[10] As we have held in Saguid vs. Court of Appeals, 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. [11] Petitioners failed to discharge that burden. | |||||