This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-04-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It is an age-old rule in civil cases that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[17] After carefully sifting through the evidence on record, the Court finds that Rogelio was able to establish a prima facie case in his favor tending to show his exclusive ownership of the parcel of land under TCT No. T-125918 with an area of 5,657 square meters, which included the 352-square meter subject lot. From the records, it appears that TCT No. T-125918 is a derivative of TCT No. T-256228, which covered a bigger area of land measuring 30,000 square meters registered in the name of Emilio Dantis; that Emilio died intestate on November 13, 1952; that Emilio's five heirs, including Rogelio, executed an extra-judicial partition of estate on December 22, 1993 and divided among themselves specific portions of the property covered by TCT No. T-256228, which were already set apart by metes and bounds; that the land known as Lot 6-D-1 of the subdivision plan Psd-031421-054315 with an area of 5,657 sq. m. went to Rogelio, the property now covered by TCT No. T-125918; and that the property was declared for realty tax purpose in the name of Rogelio for which a tax declaration was issued in his name; and that the same had not been transferred to anyone else since its issuance. | |||||
|
2013-04-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| When the issue is administrative liability, the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15] In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant.[16] In the instant case, Tiggangay failed to present substantial evidence to prove his allegations. One who alleges a fact has the burden of proof and mere allegation is not evidence.[17] | |||||
|
2007-12-04 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| First, petitioner showed no proof that he indeed bought the land from and paid the purchase price of PhP 315.02 to Dr. Hynson. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proof and mere allegation is not evidence.[10] Besides, the March 15, 1965 Deed of Sale, duly notarized, explicitly shows it was Romana who paid Dr. Hynson PhP 315.02 for the land. We quote the Deed of Sale:I, DR. ISIDRO HYNSON, Filipino, of legal age, married, with residence and postal address at Ozamis City, Misamis Occidental, Philippines, for and in consideration of the sum of THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS and TWO CENTAVOS (P315.02), Philippine Currency, to me in hand paid by MRS. ROMANA MONTEALTO, likewise Filipino, of legal age, married to Benedicto Pedrano, with residence and postal address at Poblacion, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines, receipt of which in full is hereby acknowledged to my entire satisfaction, hereby do by these presents, CEDE, SELL, CONVEY and TRANSFER absolutely unto said MRS. ROMANA MONTEALTO[.] | |||||
|
2007-10-18 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| We find for petitioner. The rule is clear questions of facts are proscribed by Rule 45. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[53] | |||||
|
2007-10-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In an action for damages due to a breach of a contract, it is essential that the claimant proves (1) the existence of a perfected contract, (2) the breach thereof by the other contracting party and (3) the damages which he/she sustained due to such breach. Actori incumbit onus probandi. The burden of proof rests on the party who advances a proposition affirmatively.[95] In other words, a plaintiff in a civil action must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, that is, evidence that has greater weight, or is more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[96] | |||||
|
2007-10-04 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Reading the petition juxtaposed with the assailed ruling and the premises holding it together wherein the CA stressed that its "decision is purely about public respondent's (DOJ Secretary's) loss of jurisdiction," it is at once apparent that the principal, if not the only issue to be considered in this case, is whether or not the DOJ Resolution of April 20, 2006 is, on jurisdictional ground, a nullity which, definitely is a question of law rather than of fact. For, a question of law exists when a) the controversy concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; b) the issue does not call for the examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsity of the facts being admitted.[24] A question of fact, on the other hand, exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence and relevancy of specific surrounding as well as those in relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[25] While the petitioner may have interspersed his arguments with matters which are factual in nature, the desired dismissal of the petition cannot be granted on that basis. For the petition and the core question pivoting on the DOJ Secretary's jurisdiction to issue his April 20, 2006 Resolution can very well be resolved on the basis of operative facts already established or at least not disputed by the parties. | |||||