This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-04-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A similar dearth of merit may be said of the exceptions petitioner continues to take against the MeTC's reliance on the survey plan prepared by Geodetic Engineer Joseph Padilla to the effect that that the premises occupied by petitioner lies within the metes and bounds of respondent's property. As mere allegation is not evidence,[43] the rule is settled that plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint which are denied by the defendant, and the defendant has the burden of proving the material allegations in his case where he sets up a new matter.[44] Given the parties' failure to make good on their agreement to cause a survey of the property thru an impartial surveyor from the Office of the City Assessor or City Engineer, respondent's submission of said report was evidently for the purpose discharging the onus of proving petitioner's encroachment on the subject parcel, as alleged in the complaint. As the party asserting the contrary proposition, petitioner cannot expediently disparage the admissibility and probative value of said survey plan to compensate for his failure to prove his own assertions. | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The circumstances enumerated by the Sandiganbayan, as against the denials of petitioner, convince us to apply the rule that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of, and who has used, a forged document, is the forger and, therefore, guilty of falsification.[61] The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, which, if no contrary proof is offered, will thereby prevail.[62] A prima facie case of falsification having been established, petitioner should have presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome such burden. This, she failed to do. | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The test for determining where the burden of proof lies is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.[21] Moreover, one alleging a fact that is denied has the burden of proving it and unless the party asserting the affirmative of an issue sustains the burden of proof of that issue by a preponderance of the evidence, his cause will not succeed.[22] Thus, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to all affirmative defenses which he sets up in answer to the plaintiff's claim or cause of action; he being the party who asserts the truth of the matter he has alleged, the burden is upon him to establish the facts on which that matter is predicated and if he fails to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict or decision in his favor.[23] | |||||