This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Parties praying that this court review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals must demonstrate and prove that the case clearly falls under the exceptions to the rule. They have the burden of proving to this court that a review of the factual findings is necessary.[134] Mere assertion and claim that the case falls under the exceptions do not suffice. | |||||
|
2007-07-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| One who has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in action for it is jurisprudentially ordained that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.[22] | |||||
|
2007-07-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. If he claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of his opponent.[24] And he, having the burden of proof, will be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.[25] | |||||
|
2004-09-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the dismissal of the Complaint is proper not only because of lack of jurisdiction, but also because of the utter absence of a cause of action,[35] a defense raised by respondents in their Answer.[36] Section 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court[37] ordains that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest, who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Indeed, one who has no right or interest to protect has no cause of action by which to invoke, as a party-plaintiff, the jurisdiction of the court.[38] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Actori incumbit onus probandi.[68] Upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts.[69] Plaintiff must therefore establish her case by a preponderance of evidence.[70] She has the burden of presenting evidence required to obtain a favorable judgment,[71] and she, having the burden of proof, will be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.[72] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[11] This rule, however, is not an iron-clad rule.[12] In Floro vs. Llenado,[13] we enumerated the various exceptions and one which finds application to the present case is when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. | |||||