This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-05-26 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| In civil cases, the law requires that the party who alleges a fact and substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proving it.[5] This evidentiary rule is based on the principle that the suitor who relies upon the existence of a fact should be called upon to prove it.[6] | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Finally, it bears stress that in an action to recover real property, the settled rule is that the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title, not on the weakness of the defendant's title.[14] This requirement is based on two (2) reasons: first, it is possible that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is the true owner of the property in dispute,[15] and second, the burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of an issue for he who relies upon the existence of a fact should be called upon to prove that fact.[16] In the case at bar, as respondent failed to prove his title to and identity of the contested land, there exists no legal ground upon which to turn over the possession of the disputed area to him. | |||||