This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-02-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to Article 160 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Although it is not necessary to prove that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership,[30] proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.[31] In the case of Francisco vs. Court of Appeals,[32] this Court categorically ruled as follows: Article 160 of the New Civil Code provides that "all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife." However, the party who invokes this presumption must first prove that the property in controversy was acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the coverture is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership. The party who asserts this presumption must first prove said time element. Needless to say, the presumption refers only to the property acquired during the marriage and does not operate when there is no showing as to when property alleged to be conjugal was acquired. Moreover, this presumption in favor of conjugality is rebuttable, but only with strong, clear and convincing evidence; there must be a strict proof of exclusive ownership of one of the spouses.[33] | |||||
|
2011-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that, as a public document, the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in favor of Eden not only enjoys a presumption of regularity[17] but is also considered prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.[18] A party assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document is, consequently, required to present evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[19] In view of the Spouses Realubit's failure to discharge this onus, we find that both the RTC and the CA correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed of Assignment upon the combined strength of the above-discussed disputable presumptions and the testimonies elicited from Eden[20] and Notary Public Rolando Diaz.[21] As for the Spouses' Realubit's bare assertion that Biondo's signature on the same document appears to be forged, suffice it to say that, like fraud,[22] forgery is never presumed and must likewise be proved by clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same.[23] Aside from not being borne out by a comparison of Biondo's signatures on the Joint Venture Agreement[24] and the Deed of Assignment,[25] said forgery is, moreover debunked by Biondo's duly authenticated certification dated 17 November 1998, confirming the transfer of his interest in the business in favor of Eden.[26] | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Since the said Affidavit was not formally offered before the COMELEC, respondent had no opportunity to examine and controvert it. To admit this document would be contrary to due process.[29] Additionally, the piecemeal presentation of evidence is not in accord with orderly justice.[30] | |||||
|
2008-02-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is Metrobank's threshold posture that Art. 160 of the Civil Code providing that "[a]ll property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be prove[n] that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife," applies. To Metrobank, Art. 116 of the Family Code could not be of governing application inasmuch as Nicholson and Florencia contracted marriage before the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. Citing Manongsong v. Estimo,[8] Metrobank asserts that the presumption of conjugal ownership under Art. 160 of the Civil Code applies when there is proof that the property was acquired during the marriage. Metrobank adds, however, that for the presumption of conjugal ownership to operate, evidence must be adduced to prove that not only was the property acquired during the marriage but that conjugal funds were used for the acquisition, a burden Nicholson allegedly failed to discharge. | |||||
|
2005-06-23 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The petitioners are estopped from changing on appeal their theory of the case in the trial court and in the CA.[20] | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The respondent, as the plaintiff, was obliged to establish the material averments of his complaint by a preponderance of evidence.[9] The petitioner as the defendant was burdened to prove its defenses that the respondent had failed to complete the project.[10] While the respondent, as the plaintiff, adduced testimonial and documentary evidence to prove his claim that he had completed the projects and that the petitioner had approved and accepted the same but failed to pay the balance of its account despite demands, the petitioner opted not to adduce a morsel of evidence in its behalf. Conformably, the petitioner must bear the consequence. In Manongsong v. Estimo,[11] the Court stressed: … Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's. The concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.[12] | |||||
|
2005-01-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Notarial Law mandates a notary public to record in his notarial register the necessary information regarding the instrument acknowledged before him. The Notarial Law also mandates the notary public to retain a copy of the instrument acknowledged before him when it is a contract.[20] The notarial register is a record of the notary public's official acts. Acknowledged instruments recorded in the notarial register are public documents.[21] If the instrument is not recorded in the notarial register and there is no copy in the notarial records, the presumption arises that the document was not notarized and is not a public document.[22] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The fundamental question for resolution is whether there was a perfected contract of sale between the Spouses Firme and Bukal Enterprises. This requires a review of the factual and legal issues of this case. As a rule, only questions of law are appealable to this Court under Rule 45[19] of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.[20] However, when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, this Court has the authority to review the findings of fact.[21] Likewise, this Court may review findings of fact when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts.[22] This is the situation in this case. | |||||