This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-12-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that in civil cases, the burden of proof to be established by preponderance of evidence is on the plaintiff who is asserting the affirmative of an issue. He has the burden of presenting evidence required to obtain a favorable judgment, and he, having the burden of proof, will be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.[3] Inasmuch as petitioners pray for the "Declaration of Nullity and Non-Existence of Deed/Title, Cancellation of Certificates of Title and Recovery of Property" against the respondent, they had the burden to establish their claims of ownership of the subject property which they failed to do in this case. | |||||
|
2003-12-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| This Court held in its Decision that petitioner is not the owner of the disputed land because the sales patent issued in his name was not registered with the Register of Deeds. Such failure, in turn, was attributed to the absence of the signature of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (sic)[28] in the deed of sale executed by the Director of Lands, thereby rendering the said deed void.[29] Authority for this conclusion is laid on the provisions of the Friar Lands Act, and amendments thereto, as well as on this Court's ruling in Solid State Multi-Products Corporation v. Court of Appeals[30] | |||||