This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-02-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Also noteworthy is Dolores' statement that her son, Nestor, denied being the owner of the old house during one of her visits thereto. Refusing to give weight to the same, the CA surmised that "it would not be farfetched to assume that Nestor Wooden bought the house after his mother's visit, having realized that he already spent far too much for the improvement of the subject house."[47] The Court, however, finds this statement a mere assumption which cannot be used as basis in deciding a case or in granting relief. A judgment has to be based on facts. Conjectures and surmises cannot substitute for the facts.[48] "A conjecture is always a conjecture; it can never be admitted as evidence."[49] Moreover, even if such assumption is permitted, same still runs counter to respondent's claim that she and Nestor renovated the old house after they purchased it sometime in 1994 and 1995. | |||||