This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-09-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| For fraud to vitiate consent, the deception employed must be the causal (dolo causante) inducement to the making of the contract,[19] and must be serious in character.[20] It must be sufficient to impress or lead an ordinarily prudent person into error, taking into account the circumstances of each case.[21] | |||||
|
2010-10-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, we further declare that the Court of Appeals erred in already awarding moral and exemplary damages in respondent's favor when the parties have not yet had the chance to present any evidence before the RTC-Branch 227. In civil cases, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence. It is incumbent upon the party claiming affirmative relief from the court to convincingly prove its claim. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence are not equivalent to proof under our Rules. In short, mere allegations are not evidence.[29] | |||||
|
2009-07-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Verily, fraud refers to all kinds of deception whether through insidious machination, manipulation, concealment or misrepresentation that would lead an ordinarily prudent person into error after taking the circumstances into account.[50] The deceit employed must be serious. It must be sufficient to impress or lead an ordinarily prudent person into error, taking into account the circumstances of each case.[51] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| [19] Mayor v. Belen, G.R. No. 151035, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 561, 567. | |||||
|
2007-07-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| While it is true that both the mortgage and surety agreement are public documents, notarization per se is not a guarantee of the validity of the contents of a document.[10] Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. However, such presumption is not absolute. It may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[11] | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The registration of the properties in petitioner's name did not obliterate the fact that fraud preceded and facilitated such registration. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of misrepresentation of material facts,[10] which in this case was the conscious representation by petitioner's father (Sabas Gasataya) that respondent's obligation to DBP had already been settled. It is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which benefit is obtained, to the prejudice of another.[11] Consequently, fraud is a ground for reconveyance.[12] | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's bare allegation is far from sufficient proof for the Court to rule in her favor. It is basic in the rule of evidence that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.[32] In short, mere allegations are not evidence.[33] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| ART.1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former. The principle that a party is presumed to know the import of a document to which he affixes his signature is modified by the foregoing article. Where a party is unable to read or when the contract is in a language not understood by the party and mistake or fraud is alleged, the obligation to show that the terms of the contract had been fully explained to said party who is unable to read or understand the language of the contract devolves on the party seeking to enforce the contract to show that the other party fully understood the contents of the document. If he fails to discharge this burden, the presumption of mistake, if not, fraud, stands unrebutted and controlling.[20] | |||||