This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is a cardinal rule of evidence, not just one of technicality but of substance, that the written document is the best evidence of its own contents. It is also a matter of both principle and policy that when the written contract is established as the repository of the parties' stipulations, any other evidence is excluded and the same cannot be used as a substitute for such contract, nor even to alter or contradict them.[20] This rule, however, is not without exception. Section. 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. Since an exception to the parol evidence rule was squarely raised as an issue in the answer, the trial court should not have been so inflexible as to completely disregard petitioner's evidence. | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that actual or compensatory damages must be proved and proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A party is entitled only up to such compensation for the pecuniary loss that he has duly proven.[47] It cannot be presumed.[48] Absent proof of the amount of actual damages sustained, the Court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof.[49] | |||||
|
2004-11-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Possession and ownership are two different legal concepts. Just as possession is not a definite proof of ownership, neither is non-possession inconsistent with ownership. Even assuming that petitioners' allegations are true, it bears no legal consequence in the case at hand because the execution of the deeds of conveyances is already deemed equivalent to delivery of the property to respondent, and prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required.[28] Under Article 1498 of the Civil Code, "when the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot be inferred." Possession is also transferred, along with ownership thereof, to respondent by virtue of the notarized deeds of conveyances.[29] | |||||