This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The transaction initiated by Santos with Sy and Lorenzo, respectively, is an investment contract or participation in a profit sharing agreement that falls within the definition of the law. When the investor is relatively uninformed and turns over his money to others, essentially depending upon their representations and their honesty and skill in managing it, the transaction generally is considered to be an investment contract.[23] The touchstone is the presence of an investment in a common venture premised on a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.[24] | |||||
|
2011-02-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "[A]s a rule, our jurisdiction in cases brought to us from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as findings of fact are deemed conclusive and we are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below."[9] While this rule is not without exception, there are no exceptional circumstances in these cases that warrant a departure from the findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA. Even after considering the merits, the petitions deserve outright denial. | |||||
|
2007-09-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As above explained, the alleged false representation or false pretense made by petitioner to private complainant was that she was still the owner of the property when she sold it to private complainant. To prove such allegation, the prosecution should first establish that the property was previously sold to a third party before it was sold to private complainant. The prosecution utterly failed to do this. The fundamental rule is that upon him who alleges rests the burden of proof.[18] It made this allegation but it failed to support it with competent evidence. Except for private complainant's bare allegation that petitioner told her that she (petitioner) sold the property to another person, the records are bereft of evidence showing that the property was indeed previously sold to a third person before it was sold again to private complainant. What was shown by the prosecution and admitted by the defense is the fact that the property is being currently occupied by a person other than private complainant. This fact does not prove that the property was previously sold to another person before being sold again to private complainant. Even assuming arguendo that the property was previously mortgaged, this does not prove that petitioner is no longer its owner when she sold the same to private complainant. At most, it only shows that the property is encumbered and that there was no change in ownership which is contrary to the prosecution's claim that there was already a transfer of ownership before the property was sold to private complainant. | |||||