This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is settled that what really defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits.[44] We have held, however, that in controversial cases where there appears to be an overlapping of boundaries, the actual size of the property gains importance.[45] | |||||
|
2006-06-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As held in Heirs of Anastacio Fabela v. Court of Appeals,[16] when the records do not show that the land subject of the action for recovery has been exactly determined, such action cannot prosper, inasmuch as respondents' ownership rights in the land claimed do not appear satisfactorily and conclusively proven at the trial. | |||||
|
2004-10-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We must stress, however, that a judgment of default against the petitioner who failed to appear during pre-trial or, for that matter, any defendant who failed to file an answer, does not imply a waiver of all of their rights, except their right to be heard and to present evidence to support their allegations. Otherwise, it would be meaningless to request presentation of evidence every time the other party is declared in default. If it were so, a decision would then automatically be rendered in favor of the non-defaulting party and exactly to the tenor of his prayer.[22] The law also gives the defaulting parties some measure of protection because plaintiffs, despite the default of defendants, are still required to substantiate their allegations in the complaint.[23] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense.[38] This applies with more vigor where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief.[39] Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[40] | |||||