Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF EMILIO SANTIOQUE v. HEIRS OF EMILIO CALMA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167454 2014-09-24	EMERITU C. BARUT v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
The CA's negative treatment of the declaration contained in Villas' extra-judicial sworn statement was in accord with prevailing rules and jurisprudence. Pursuant to Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the RTC as the trial court could consider only the evidence that had been formally offered; towards that end, the offering party must specify the purpose for which the evidence was being offered. The rule would ensure the right of the adverse party to due process of law, for, otherwise, the adverse party would not be put in the position to timely object to the evidence, as well as to properly counter the impact of evidence not formally offered.[10] As stated in Candido v. Court of Appeals:[11]
	GR No. 174104 2011-02-14	INSURANCE OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION v. SPS. VIDAL S. GREGORIO AND JULITA GREGORIO PERALTA, J.
The essence of laches or "stale demands" is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[9] It is not concerned with mere lapse of time; the fact of delay, standing alone, being insufficient to constitute laches.[10][ ]
	GR No. 162886 2008-08-11	HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court has ruled time and again that tax declarations do not prove ownership but are at best an indicium of claims of ownership.[38] Payment of taxes is not proof of ownership, any more than indicating possession in the concept of an owner.[39] Neither a tax receipt nor a declaration of ownership for taxation purposes is evidence of ownership or of the right to possess realty when not supported by other effective proofs.[40]
	GR NO. 150089 2007-08-28	ERLINDA B. DANDOY v. CA NACHURA, J.
Demurrer to evidence authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part as he would ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff's evidence shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought. Demurrer, therefore, is an aid or instrument for the expeditious termination of an action, similar to a motion to dismiss, which the court or tribunal may either grant or deny.[12]
	GR NO. 161304 2007-07-27	SPS. ARTURO CONDES AND NORA CONDES v. CA NACHURA, J.
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of evidence.[27] "Preponderance of evidence" means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[28] It is, therefore, premature to speak of "preponderance of evidence" in a demurrer to evidence because it is filed before the defendant presents his evidence. The purpose of a demurrer to evidence is precisely to expeditiously terminate the case without the need of the defendant's evidence. It authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part as he would ordinarily have to do, if it is shown by plaintiff's evidence that the latter is not entitled to the relief sought.[29]