Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEONARDO ACABAL v. VILLANER ACABAL

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 192629 2015-11-25	FILINVEST LAND v. EDUARDO R. ADIA BRION, J.
To elaborate, Article 1416 of the Civil Code provides an exception to the pari delicto doctrine. Under this article, the plaintiff may recover what he paid or delivered pursuant to a void contract if the following requisites are met: (a) the contract is not illegal per se but merely prohibited; (b) the prohibition is for the plaintiffs protection; and (c) public policy will be enhanced by his recovery.[20] These requisites are present in this case.
	GR No. 157537 2011-09-07	GO v. ESTER L. SERVACIO BERSAMIN, J.
Protacio, Sr., although becoming a co-owner with his children in respect of Marta's share in the conjugal partnership, could not yet assert or claim title to any specific portion of Marta's share without an actual partition of the property being first done either by agreement or by judicial decree. Until then, all that he had was an ideal or abstract quota in Marta's share.[18] Nonetheless, a co-owner could sell his undivided share; hence, Protacio, Sr. had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest, but not the interest of his co-owners.[19] Consequently, the sale by Protacio, Sr. and Rito as co-owners without the consent of the other co-owners was not necessarily void, for the rights of the selling co-owners were thereby effectively transferred, making the buyer (Servacio) a co-owner of Marta's share.[20] This result conforms to the well-established principle that the binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so (quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest).[21]
	GR No. 160898 2008-06-27	DAVID SIA TIO v. LORENZO ABAYATA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Mere inadequacy of price is not ipso facto a badge of lack of good faith. To be so, the price must be grossly inadequate or shocking to the conscience such that the mind revolts against it and such that a reasonable man would neither directly nor indirectly be likely to consent to it.[41] While there is an apparent wide disparity in the value of the subject property between 1989 and 1990, undisputed attendant circumstances show the reasonableness of the purchase price of the sale between Lasola and the Rural Bank. It must be stressed that the property was mortgaged by Lasola to the Rural Bank for P100,000.00. It was bought by the Rural Bank at the extra-judicial sale at P108,185.34. Also, the Certificate Authorizing Registration issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to petitioners shows that the prevailing fair market value of the property in 1989 was P85,260.00.[42] All these show that the price in the amount of P150,000.00 paid by petitioners for the purchase of the property was within reasonable bounds.
	GR No. 141181 2007-04-27	SAMSON CHING v. CLARITA NICDAO CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is a basic rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations - Et incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit (The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof).[48] In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[49] Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court offers the guidelines in determining preponderance of evidence: SEC. 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. - In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. Unfortunately, petitioner Ching's testimony alone does not constitute preponderant evidence to establish respondent Nicdao's civil liability to him amounting to P20,950,000.00. Apart from the discredited checks, he failed to adduce any other documentary evidence to prove that respondent Nicdao still has unpaid obligations to him in the said amount. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules.[50]
	GR No. 155483 2007-04-27	HEIRS OF PEDRO PASAG v. SPS. LORENZO AND FLORENTINA PAROCHA VELASCO JR., J.
In the present case, we have thoroughly reviewed the records and are convinced that petitioners have failed to sufficiently prove their allegations. It is a basic rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations.[27] However, petitioners did not substantiate their allegations and merely argued that the Complaint should be "threshed out in a full blown trial in order to establish their respective positions on issues [which are] a matter of judicial appreciation."[28]
	GR NO. 160994 2006-07-27	WILFREDO v. PAULO FLORESCA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Moreover, the petitioners' claim that they were purchasers in good faith is untenable. The issue of good faith or bad faith of a buyer is relevant only where the subject of the sale is a registered land but not where the property is an unregistered land. One who purchases an unregistered land does so at his peril.[28]
	GR NO. 141993 2006-03-17	NARCISA AVILA v. SPS. BENJAMIN BARABAT CORONA, J.
Petitioners' claim of gross inadequacy of selling price has no basis. They failed to introduce evidence of the correct price at the time the land was sold to respondents in 1979. How can we therefore conclude that the price was grossly inadequate? In the absence of evidence as to the fair market value of a parcel of land at the time of its sale, we cannot reasonably conclude that the price at which it was sold was inadequate.[6]