This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-11-11 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| It is established that the one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the creditor alleges non-payment, the general rule is that the debtor has the burden to prove payment, rather than the creditor. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment. Where the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence—as distinct from the general burden of proof—shifts to the creditor, who is then under a duty of producing some evidence to show non-payment.[56] | |||||
|
2013-06-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the first issue, it would be sufficient to state that the matter surrounding the Deed of Assignment had already been considered by the trial court and the CA. Likewise, it is an issue of fact that is not a proper subject of a petition for review under Rule 45. An issue is factual when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation.[11] Time and again, We stress that this Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew evidence which lower courts have passed upon. | |||||
|
2013-06-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.[20] When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, proof of non-payment is not needed for it is presumed.[21] Respondent's possession of the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage strongly buttresses its claim that the obligation has not been extinguished. As held in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Royeca:[22] | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Respondent insists that the issues raised by petitioner are factual and therefore not proper subjects in a petition for review under Rule 45. Although Section 1 of Rule 45 states that the petition should raise only questions of law, this rule is subject to several exceptions as enumerated by this Court in Royal Cargo Corporation v. DFS Sports Unlimited, Inc.:[13] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have stressed that the rule on amendment need not be applied rigidly, particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party. Where there is a variance in defendant's pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial, the Court may treat the pleading as if it had been amended to conform to the evidence.[10] In Royal Cargo Corporation v. DFS Sports Unlimited, Inc.,[11] the Court stated that: The failure of a party to amend a pleading to conform to the evidence adduced during trial does not preclude adjudication by the court on the basis of such evidence which may embody new issues not raised in the pleadings. x x x Although, the pleading may not have been amended to conform to the evidence submitted during trial, judgment may nonetheless be rendered, not simply on the basis of the issues alleged but also on the issues discussed and the assertions of fact proved in the course of the trial. The court may treat the pleading as if it had been amended to conform to the evidence, although it had not been actually amended. x x x Clearly, a court may rule and render judgment on the basis of the evidence before it even though the relevant pleading had not been previously amended, so long as no surprise or prejudice is thereby caused to the adverse party. Put a little differently, so long as the basic requirements of fair play had been met, as where the litigants were given full opportunity to support their respective contentions and to object to or refute each other's evidence, the court may validly treat the pleadings as if they had been amended to conform to the evidence and proceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We now come to a discussion of whether interest should be imposed on petitioner's indebtedness. In Royal Cargo Corp. v. DFS Sports Unlimited, Inc.,[18] the Court reiterated the settled rule on imposition of interest, thus: As to computation of legal interest, the seminal ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals controls, to wit: | |||||