This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-12-01 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The petitioner further asserts that he is entitled to respondents' properties based on the concept of trust. He claims that since the subject real properties were purchased using funds of the partnership, wherein he has a 6% share, then "law and equity mandates that he should be considered as a co-owner of those properties in such proportion."[43] In Pigao v. Rabanillo,[44] this Court explained the concept of trusts, to wit: Express trusts are created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, while implied trusts come into being by operation of law, either through implication of an intention to create a trust as a matter of law or through the imposition of the trust irrespective of, and even contrary to, any such intention. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts. Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature or circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another.[45] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is well settled that courts will consider as evidence only that which has been formally offered,[55] otherwise, the opposing party would be denied due process of law.[56] Thus, the Court explained in one case that A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. To allow a party to attach any document to his pleading and then expect the court to consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted consequences. The opposing party will be deprived of his chance to examine the document and object to its admissibility. The appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court below.[57] Petitioners, however, contend that they could have presented the said documents during the rebuttal stage of the proceedings before the trial court. It bears stressing, however, that a plaintiff is bound to introduce all evidence that supports his case during the presentation of his evidence in chief.[58] A party holding the affirmative of an issue is bound to present all of the evidence on the case in chief before the close of the proof, and may not add to it by the device of rebuttal.[59] After the parties have produced their respective direct proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only.[60] | |||||
|
2006-08-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The very first time said demand letter was ever mentioned or appeared in the record was in the formal offer of evidence, supposedly marked as Exhibit "R." How said demand letter came to be marked as Exhibit "R" and inserted into the record truly mystifies this Court. Such circumstance, to say the least, is tainted with irregularity because, as previously mentioned, such document was never presented or identified in any of the hearings. As held in Pigao v. Rabanillo,[14] for documentary evidence to be considered by the court, it must have been presented during trial and formally offered. | |||||