Lawyerly

GR No. 171182

2012-08-23

UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON

BERSAMIN, J.

Like the actual and moral damages, the P150,000.00, plus P1,500.00 per appearance, granted as attorney's fees were factually unwarranted and devoid of legal basis. The general rule is that a successful litigant cannot recover attorney's fees as part of the damages to be assessed against the losing party because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[114] Prior to the effectivity of the present Civil Code, indeed, such fees could be recovered only when there was a stipulation to that effect. It was only under the present Civil Code that the right to collect attorney's fees in the cases mentioned in Article 2208[115] of the Civil Code came to be recognized.[116] Nonetheless, with attorney's fees being allowed in the concept of actual damages,[117] their amounts must be factually and legally justified in the body of the decision and not stated for the first time in the decretal portion.[118] Stating the amounts only in the dispositive portion of the judgment is not enough;[119] a rendition of the factual and legal justifications for them must also be laid out in the body of the decision.[120]

GR No. 155830

2012-08-15

NUMERIANO P. ABOBON v. FELICITAS ABATA ABOBON

BERSAMIN, J.

Even so, whenever attorney's fees are proper in a case, the decision rendered therein should still expressly state the factual basis and legal justification for granting them.[35] Granting them in the dispositive portion of the judgment is not enough;[36] a discussion of the factual basis and legal justification for them must be laid out in the body of the decision.[37] Considering that the award of attorney's fees in favor of the respondents fell short of this requirement, the Court disallows the award for want of the factual and legal premises in the body of the decision.[38] The requirement for express findings of fact and law has been set in order to bring the case within the exception and justify the award of the attorney's fees. Otherwise, the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.[39]

GR No. 183606

2009-10-27

CHARLIE T. LEE v. ROSITA DELA PAZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is a basic rule in civil cases, including an action for forcible entry, that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, which simply means "evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it." Hence, parties who have the burden of proof must produce such quantum of evidence, with plaintiffs having to rely on the strength of their own evidence, not on the weakness of the defendant's.[31]

GR No. 158877

2009-06-16

JOVEN DE GRANO v. GREGORIO LACABA

NACHURA, J.

A party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In doing so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the defendant's.[32] To prove prior possession, respondent presented his tax declarations, tax receipt and a certification from the municipal assessor attesting that he has paid real property tax from previous years. He, likewise, testified that he appointed the spouses Mojica as his caretakers, and allowed three other spouses to build their houses on the property. Respondent's counsels also explained that they were not able to secure the affidavits of the occupants of the property and the neighbors because they feared for their lives.

GR No. 146428

2009-01-19

HEIRS OF DECEASED CARMEN CRUZ-ZAMORA v. MULTIWOOD INTERNATIONAL

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, which simply means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[15] However, although the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by the defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in favor of the former, if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's.[16] Whether or not Exhibits K to K-7 are considered or admitted in evidence, the Court finds that Zamora failed to prove by preponderant evidence her cause of action for collection of ten percent (10%) commission on her solicitations of interior construction contracts whether under the Marketing Agreement or any other agreement with the defendant.

GR No. 158144

2008-07-31

ST. MARY'S FARM v. PRIMA REAL PROPERTIES

NACHURA, J.

A cursory reading of the issues reveals that these are factual matters which are not within the province of the Court to look into, save only in exceptional circumstances which are not present in the case at bar. Well settled is the rule that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law must be raised.[5] As a matter of procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts, especially when, as in the case at bar, such findings are affirmed by the appellate court. This factual determination, as a matter of long and sound appellate practice, deserves great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal. It is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of the factual holding of the lower courts.[6]

GR No. 178907

2008-07-04

FLORA N. FLORES v. SPS. LUCAS AND ZENAIDA QUITALIG

VELASCO JR., J.

An action for forcible entry is summary in nature. It is designed to recover physical possession through prompt proceedings that are restrictive in nature, scope, and time limits. [4] In such action, the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior possession of the land or building and that he was deprived thereof by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.[5]

GR No. 171315

2008-02-26

ANTONIO ARBIZO v. SPS. ANTONIO SANTILLAN and ROSARIO L. SANTILLAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, which simply means "evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it."[16]

GR NO. 168396

2006-06-22

MARCELINA V. ESPINO v. SPS. RICARDO VICENTE AND EMMA M. VICENTE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

However, this rule is not iron-clad. We have consistently recognized several exceptional circumstances where we disregarded the aforesaid tenet and proceeded to review the findings of facts of the lower court such as: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record.[12]

GR NO. 169213

2006-06-22

GANIE P. OLAMA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The petitioners argue that the findings of facts made by the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. Verily, the issue raised by the petitioners invite us to rule on questions of fact, contrary to the settled rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review. However, while it is an established dictum that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh evidence anew, the circumstances obtaining in the present case require us to disregard the general rule and to apply one of the recognized exceptions, i.e., when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.[17]

	GR No. 171182 2012-08-23	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON BERSAMIN, J.
Like the actual and moral damages, the P150,000.00, plus P1,500.00 per appearance, granted as attorney's fees were factually unwarranted and devoid of legal basis. The general rule is that a successful litigant cannot recover attorney's fees as part of the damages to be assessed against the losing party because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[114] Prior to the effectivity of the present Civil Code, indeed, such fees could be recovered only when there was a stipulation to that effect. It was only under the present Civil Code that the right to collect attorney's fees in the cases mentioned in Article 2208[115] of the Civil Code came to be recognized.[116] Nonetheless, with attorney's fees being allowed in the concept of actual damages,[117] their amounts must be factually and legally justified in the body of the decision and not stated for the first time in the decretal portion.[118] Stating the amounts only in the dispositive portion of the judgment is not enough;[119] a rendition of the factual and legal justifications for them must also be laid out in the body of the decision.[120]
	GR No. 155830 2012-08-15	NUMERIANO P. ABOBON v. FELICITAS ABATA ABOBON BERSAMIN, J.
Even so, whenever attorney's fees are proper in a case, the decision rendered therein should still expressly state the factual basis and legal justification for granting them.[35] Granting them in the dispositive portion of the judgment is not enough;[36] a discussion of the factual basis and legal justification for them must be laid out in the body of the decision.[37] Considering that the award of attorney's fees in favor of the respondents fell short of this requirement, the Court disallows the award for want of the factual and legal premises in the body of the decision.[38] The requirement for express findings of fact and law has been set in order to bring the case within the exception and justify the award of the attorney's fees. Otherwise, the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.[39]
	GR No. 183606 2009-10-27	CHARLIE T. LEE v. ROSITA DELA PAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a basic rule in civil cases, including an action for forcible entry, that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, which simply means "evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it." Hence, parties who have the burden of proof must produce such quantum of evidence, with plaintiffs having to rely on the strength of their own evidence, not on the weakness of the defendant's.[31]
	GR No. 158877 2009-06-16	JOVEN DE GRANO v. GREGORIO LACABA NACHURA, J.
A party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In doing so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the defendant's.[32] To prove prior possession, respondent presented his tax declarations, tax receipt and a certification from the municipal assessor attesting that he has paid real property tax from previous years. He, likewise, testified that he appointed the spouses Mojica as his caretakers, and allowed three other spouses to build their houses on the property. Respondent's counsels also explained that they were not able to secure the affidavits of the occupants of the property and the neighbors because they feared for their lives.
	GR No. 146428 2009-01-19	HEIRS OF DECEASED CARMEN CRUZ-ZAMORA v. MULTIWOOD INTERNATIONAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, which simply means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[15] However, although the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by the defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in favor of the former, if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's.[16] Whether or not Exhibits K to K-7 are considered or admitted in evidence, the Court finds that Zamora failed to prove by preponderant evidence her cause of action for collection of ten percent (10%) commission on her solicitations of interior construction contracts whether under the Marketing Agreement or any other agreement with the defendant.
	GR No. 158144 2008-07-31	ST. MARY'S FARM v. PRIMA REAL PROPERTIES NACHURA, J.
A cursory reading of the issues reveals that these are factual matters which are not within the province of the Court to look into, save only in exceptional circumstances which are not present in the case at bar. Well settled is the rule that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law must be raised.[5] As a matter of procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts, especially when, as in the case at bar, such findings are affirmed by the appellate court. This factual determination, as a matter of long and sound appellate practice, deserves great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal. It is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of the factual holding of the lower courts.[6]
	GR No. 178907 2008-07-04	FLORA N. FLORES v. SPS. LUCAS AND ZENAIDA QUITALIG VELASCO JR., J.
An action for forcible entry is summary in nature. It is designed to recover physical possession through prompt proceedings that are restrictive in nature, scope, and time limits. [4] In such action, the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior possession of the land or building and that he was deprived thereof by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.[5]
	GR No. 171315 2008-02-26	ANTONIO ARBIZO v. SPS. ANTONIO SANTILLAN and ROSARIO L. SANTILLAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, which simply means "evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it."[16]
	GR NO. 168396 2006-06-22	MARCELINA V. ESPINO v. SPS. RICARDO VICENTE AND EMMA M. VICENTE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, this rule is not iron-clad. We have consistently recognized several exceptional circumstances where we disregarded the aforesaid tenet and proceeded to review the findings of facts of the lower court such as: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record.[12]
	GR NO. 169213 2006-06-22	GANIE P. OLAMA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The petitioners argue that the findings of facts made by the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. Verily, the issue raised by the petitioners invite us to rule on questions of fact, contrary to the settled rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review. However, while it is an established dictum that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh evidence anew, the circumstances obtaining in the present case require us to disregard the general rule and to apply one of the recognized exceptions, i.e., when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.[17]

THELMA BUDUHAN v. CURSON PAKURAO