This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| More specifically, petitioner-spouses' contention, i.e., that the subject property really belonged to Roman's first spouse Flavia as her paraphernal property, cannot be sustained. This position was anchored from the testimony of Josefina[19] that the lot was actually bought by her maternal grandfather and given to her mother Flavia. Josefina's declarations before the RTC do not deserve merit and weight, particularly in light of her statement that she was told so by her elders way back in 1923, when at that time she was only around three (3) years of age.[20] Besides, such a pronouncement was not supported by any proof, save for the lame excuse that the deed of sale showing the said transaction was allegedly lost and destroyed by a typhoon at a time when she was already married, claiming that she was then the custodian of the supposed document. Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself.[21] In other words, it must be natural, reasonable, and probable to warrant belief. The standard as to the truth of human testimony is its conformity to human knowledge, observation, and experience; the courts cannot heed otherwise.[22] Regretfully, petitioner-spouses' allegations do not measure up to the yardstick of verity. | |||||