Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMILIA MANZANO v. MIGUEL PEREZ SR.

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 204369 2014-09-17	ENRIQUETA M. LOCSIN v. BERNARDO HIZON VELASCO JR., J.
To bridge the gap in their documentary evidence, respondents proffer their own testimonies explaining the circumstances surrounding the alleged sale.[26] However, basic is the rule that bare and self-serving allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules.[27] As such, we cannot give credence to their representations that the sale between them actually transpired.
	GR NO. 165620 2006-09-08	PRISCILA V. PADRE v. ELIAS MALABANAN GARCIA, J.
To stress, the respondent very much placed in issue the alleged tolerance of the petitioners, including the question of whether or not the latter were ever in possession at all of the subject premises. In the law of evidence, allegations are not proofs,[5] more so when, as here, the other party very much denied those allegations. The fatal error committed by the MeTC and perpetuated on appeal by the RTC is that both courts mistook allegations as proofs, ignoring the fact that those allegations were all denied by the respondent.
	GR NO. 149670 2006-06-27	MILLEX CONSTRUCTION v. CITYSTATE INSURANCE CORPORATION CORONA, J.
Petitioner even faults the Court of Appeals for not noticing that there was no proper service of summons. But the Court of Appeals cannot engage in guesswork. Courts are not expected to read what goes on in the minds of the litigant.[8] It was incumbent on petitioner to disprove the finding of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that there was a valid service of summons. Having failed to do so, it cannot now ask this Court to come to its aid. As aptly held by the Court of Appeals: On the issue of invalid service of summons to a mere secretary, We have meticulously perused over appellant's brief and all that it can argue about is that the return says summons was served on Ailyn Marasigan, secretary, without even claiming or clarifying that Ailyn Marasigan is just a mere secretary of a department or an officer of the corporation. The appellant, wittingly or unwittingly, kept this in silence.
	GR No. 151035 2004-06-03	ANDREA MAYOR v. LOURDES MASANGKAY Y BELEN YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In this case, petitioners alleged that Lourdes M. Belen affixed her signature on the questioned contracts freely and voluntarily. We have assiduously scoured the record but like the appellate court we have not come across convincing evidence to support their allegations. In civil cases, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence.[8] Suffice it to state that such self-serving claims are not enough to rebut the presumption of fraud provided for in Article 1332 of the Civil Code. As the party claiming affirmative relief from the court, it is incumbent upon petitioners to convincingly prove their claim. This they failed to do. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence are not equivalent to proof under our Rules.[9] In short, mere allegations are not evidence.[10]