This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that, as in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue.[19] Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense.[20] This principle holds true especially when the latter has had no opportunity to present evidence because of a default order,[21] as in the present case. The petitioner, as plaintiff below, is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for.[22] The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint.[23] Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief.[24] Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[25] In addition, this Court, in Otero v. Tan,[26] further elucidated that: While it may be said that by defaulting, the defendant leaves himself at the mercy of the court, the rules nevertheless see to it that any judgment against him must be in accordance with the evidence required by law. The evidence of the plaintiff, presented in the defendant's absence, cannot be admitted if it is basically incompetent. Although the defendant would not be in a position to object, elementary justice requires that only legal evidence should be considered against him. If the same should prove insufficient to justify a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint must be dismissed. And if a favorable judgment is justifiable, it cannot exceed in amount or be different in kind from what is prayed for in the complaint.[27] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Court upholds the foregoing findings and conclusions by the CA both because they were substantiated by the records and because we have not been shown any reason to revisit and undo them. Indeed, the petitioner, as the party claiming the co-ownership, did not discharge her burden of proof. Her mere allegations on her contributions, not being evidence,[31] did not serve the purpose. In contrast, given the subsistence of the first marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia, the presumption that Atty. Luna acquired the properties out of his own personal funds and effort remained. It should then be justly concluded that the properties in litis legally pertained to their conjugal partnership of gains as of the time of his death. Consequently, the sole ownership of the 25/100 pro indiviso share of Atty. Luna in the condominium unit, and of the lawbooks pertained to the respondents as the lawful heirs of Atty. Luna. | |||||
|
2014-06-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, the petitioners' entitlement to their claims was not proven by preponderance of evidence. As correctly pointed out by the CA, the MTCC should have, after it declared Van der Kolk in default, directed the Heirs of Yabao to adduce evidence to substantiate the allegations in their complaint. After all, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.[26] | |||||