This case has been cited 18 times or more.
|
2015-07-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Rightly enough, the RTC and the CA unanimously concluded that Nicolas had duly acknowledged Anacleto as his illegitimate son. The birth certificate of Anacleto appearing in the Register of Births of the Municipality of Bacong, Negros Oriental (Exhibits 3, 3-A) showed that Nicolas had himself caused the registration of the birth of Anacleto. The showing was by means of the name of Nicolas appearing in the column "Remarks" in Page 53, Book 4, Register No. 214 of the Register of Births. Based on the certification (Exhibit 3-B) issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Bacong, Negros Oriental, the column in the Register of Births entitled "Remarks" (Observaciones) was the space provided for the name of the informant of the live birth to be registered. Considering that Nicolas, the putative father, had a direct hand in the preparation of the birth certificate, reliance on the birth certificate of Anacleto as evidence of his paternity was fully warranted.[35] | |||||
|
2015-06-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.[36] | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| As the rule indicates, preponderant evidence refers to evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than the evidence offered in opposition to it.[18] It is proof that leads the trier of facts to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.[19] | |||||
|
2012-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Neither does the testimony of Randy establish his illegitimate filiation. That during their first encounter in 1994 Randy called Antonio "Papa" and kissed his hand while Antonio hugged him and promised to support him; or that his Aunt Lelita treated him as a relative and was good to him during his one-week stay in her place, cannot be considered as indications of Randy's open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child under the second paragraph of Article 172(1). "[T]o prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, by continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed to pure charity. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not accidentally, but continuously."[62] Here, the single instance that Antonio allegedly hugged Randy and promised to support him cannot be considered as proof of continuous possession of the status of a child. To emphasize, "[t]he father's conduct towards his son must be spontaneous and uninterrupted for this ground to exist."[63] Here, except for that singular occasion in which they met, there are no other acts of Antonio treating Randy as his son.[64] Neither can Antonio's paternity be deduced from how his sister Lelita treated Randy. To this Court, Lelita's actuations could have been done due to charity or some other reasons. | |||||
|
2009-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The plaintiff in a civil case has the burden of proof as he alleges the affirmative of the issue. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case; otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.[99] The party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.[100] The concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it;[101] in the last analysis, it means probability of truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[102] Rule 133, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the guidelines for determining preponderance of evidence, thus:In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Jison v. Court of Appeals, [33] this Court outlined the quantum of evidence required in order to sufficiently assert one's claim in civil cases, thus:The foregoing discussion, however, must be situated within the general rules on evidence, in light of the burden of proof in civil cases, i.e., preponderance of evidence, and the shifting of the burden of evidence in such cases. Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's. The concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth. | |||||
|
2008-09-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The spouses Mulato's submission of their alleged lease contract with the spouses Songcuan is as defective as Leticia's submission of her alleged lease contract with the spouses Mulato: both lease contracts were merely attached to their pleadings and not formally offered as evidence. However, for the MTC to grant Leticia's complaint for unlawful detainer, what was imperative was for her to prove that the spouses Mulato are her lessees and not merely to disprove the spouses Mulato's claim that they are someone else's lessees. He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof; and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts.[33] | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.[10] A careful examination of the evidence presented by petitioner will show that it was able to adduce preponderant evidence to prove its claim. As stated above, petitioner has shown through testimonial and documentary evidence that respondent had ordered an unusually large number of reagents used in the operation of the "TECHNICON RA 1000". Petitioner was further able to show that a computation based on the number of said orders would lead to the conclusion that respondent was able to conduct tests in excess of the minimum 150 tests per day. Nonetheless, respondent failed to present convincing evidence to sufficiently controvert this claim of petitioner that excess tests were conducted on the "TECHNICON RA 1000". As was pointed out earlier, neither the logbook nor the charge slips, which were supposed to show that no more than 150 tests were conducted daily were never presented before the trial court. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent is liable for the amount of P1,684,219.82 representing the value of the tests conducted in excess of the minimum 150 tests per day. | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In our rule on evidence, TRANS-ASIA, as the plaintiff below, necessarily has the burden of proof to show proof of loss, and the coverage thereof, in the subject insurance policy. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.[23] TRANS-ASIA was able to establish proof of loss and the coverage of the loss, i.e., 25 October 1993: Fire on Board. Thereafter, the burden of evidence shifted to PRUDENTIAL to counter TRANS-ASIA's case, and to prove its special and affirmative defense that TRANS-ASIA was in violation of the particular condition on CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. | |||||
|
2006-03-28 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| While Angelina Bustamante indeed protested the award of a sales patent in favor of respondent, the protest was, however, filed with the Bureau of Lands instead of with the regional trial court as mandated by the aforequoted provision of Section 38 of Act No. 496. Said provision expressly states that a petition for review of a decree of registration shall be filed in the "proper Court of First Instance" (now Regional Trial Court). The law did not say that such petition may be filed with an administrative agency like the Bureau of Lands. To be sure, what the law contemplates in allowing a review of the decree of registration is a full-blown trial before a regular court where each party could be afforded full opportunity to present his/its case and where each of them must establish his case by preponderance of evidence and not by mere substantial evidence, the usual quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings. The concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.[32] On the other hand, substantial evidence refers to such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.[33] | |||||
|
2006-01-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Burden of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil cases. The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment. For the plaintiff, the burden of proof never parts.[15] For the defendant, an affirmative defense is one which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff's cause of action, but one which, if established, will be a good defense i.e. an "avoidance" of the claim.[16] | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Jison v. Court of Appeals,[45] we declared | |||||
|
2004-10-21 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In the same vein, we have ruled that, while a baptismal certificate may be considered a public document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the child's paternity.[9] Thus, certificates issued by the local civil registrar and baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same.[10] | |||||
|
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 date, month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to be 20 August 1939 during the regime of the 1935 Constitution. Through its history, four modes of acquiring citizenship - naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus sanguinis[28] had been in vogue. Only two, i.e., jus soli and jus sanguinis, could qualify a person to being a "natural-born" citizen of the Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector of Customs[29] (1912), did not last long. With the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor[30] (1947), jus sanguinis or blood relationship would now become the primary basis of citizenship by birth. | |||||
|
2003-12-08 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| (4) Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant.[23] Petitioner complied with her obligation to deliver the property in 1966.[24] However, respondent's husband failed to comply with his reciprocal obligation to pay, when the money he had been expecting from Manila never materialized.[25] He also failed to make further installments after May 13, 1966.[26] As early as 1966, therefore, petitioner already had the right to compel payment or to ask for rescission, pursuant to Article 1169 of the Civil Code, which reads:"Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. | |||||
|
2003-06-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We review the factual and legal issues of this case in light of the general rules of evidence and the burden of proof in civil cases, as explained by this Court in Jison v. Court of Appeals :[23] | |||||