Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VIRGINIA REAL v. SISENANDO H. BELO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 181892 2015-09-08	REPUBLIC v. JESUS M. MUPAS BRION, J.
The mean percentage range is highly speculative and devoid of any factual basis. As a court of law, we should only measure just compensation using relevant and actual evidence as basis in fixing the value of the condemned property. Just compensation must be duly proven by preponderance of evidence or greater weight of credible evidence.[293] Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.[294]
	GR No. 182356 2013-12-04	DRA. LEILA A. DELA LLANA v. REBECCA BIONG BRION, J.
In civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. He who alleges has the burden of proving his allegation by preponderance of evidence or greater weight of credible evidence.[34] The reason for this rule is that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. In short, mere allegations are not evidence.[35]
	GR No. 165355 2012-09-26	TOMAS T. TEODORO v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION BRION, J.
As to the respondent's prayer, we can no longer examine the CA's deletion of the monetary amounts awarded by the RTC since the respondent did not appeal from the CA decision. "[A] party who did not appeal cannot assign such errors as are designed to have the judgment modified."[45] The established exceptions to this rule such as "(1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors"[46] do not apply to this case.
	GR No. 176434 2008-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LIFETIME MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J,
Be that as it may, we find the appellate court's decision increasing the award of actual damages in favor of LMC improper since the latter did not appeal from the decision of the trial court. It is well-settled that a party who does not appeal from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he has obtained from the lower court whose decision is brought up on appeal. The exceptions to this rule, such as where there are (1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors, do not apply in this case.[17]
	GR No. 155604 2007-11-22	COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN v. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Article 1174 of the Civil Code defines a fortuitous event as that which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable. Whether an act of god[16] or an act of man,[17] to constitute a fortuitous event, it must be shown that: a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the obligor to comply with its obligations was independent of human will; b) it was impossible to foresee the event or, if it could have been foreseen, to avoid it; c) the occurrence rendered it impossible for the obligor to fulfill its obligations in a normal manner; and d) said obligor was free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury or loss.[18] If the negligence or fault of the obligor coincided with the occurrence of the fortuitous event, and caused the loss or damage or the aggravation thereof, the fortuitous event cannot shield the obligor from liability for his negligence.[19]
	GR NO. 142938 2007-08-28	MIGUEL INGUSAN v. HEIRS OF AURELIANO I. REYES CORONA, J.
Respondents presented an additional issue involving the recovery of possession of the subject land. They contend that petitioner, his heirs and relatives illegally occupied it and constructed houses thereon.[43] However, it is well-settled that a party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those obtained from the lower court whose decision is brought up on appeal.[44] While there are exceptions to this rule, such as if they involve (1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) plain errors not specified and (3) clerical errors, none applies here.[45]
	GR NO. 164195 2007-02-06	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court is aware that in the instant case, since LBP's appeal before the Court of Appeals is to be given due course, the normal procedure is for us to remand the case to the appellate court for further proceedings. However, when there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioner's case may be had, the Court may dispense with the time-consuming procedure in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case.[53] Indeed, remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not conducive to the speedy administration of justice and it becomes unnecessary where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and expeditious administration of justice, has resolved action on the merits, instead of remanding them for further proceedings, as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case[54] or where the trial court had already received all the evidence of the parties.[55] Briefly stated, a remand of the instant case to the Court of Appeals would serve no purpose save to further delay its disposition contrary to the spirit of fair play.