Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
Yes, the sale is valid. The main issue in determining the validity
of the sale of the property by Rosca alone is anchored on whether Uy
and Rosca had a valid marriage. There is a presumption established in
our Rules "that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband
and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage." Semper
praesumitur pro matrimonio Always presume marriage. However,
this presumption may be contradicted by a party and overcome by
other evidence. Consequently, with the presumption of marriage
sufficiently overcome, the onus probandi of defendant Rosca shifted
to plaintiff Uy. It then became the burden of plaintiff Uy to prove that
he and defendant Rosca, were legally married. It became necessary for
plaintiff Uy therefore to submit additional proof to show that they
were legally married. He, however, dismally failed to do so. Since Uy
failed to discharge the burden that he was legally married to Rosca,
their property relations would be governed by Article 147 of the
Family Code which applies when a couple living together were not
incapacitated from getting married.
The provision states that properties acquired during cohabitation are
presumed co-owned unless there is proof to the contrary. The court
agree with both the trial and appellate courts that Rosca was able to
prove that the subject property is not co-owned but is paraphernal.
DOLORES DIAZ, Petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LETICIA S.
ARCILLA, Respondents.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
In upholding the civil liability of petitioner, the CA did not dwell into
the purported admission of petitioner anent her receipt of GCs in the
amount of P32,000.00 as found by the RTC. Instead, the CA hinged its
ruling on the acknowledgment receipt dated February 20, 1996, the
documentary evidence that respondent had duly identified and
formally offered in the course of these proceedings.
Petitioner's claim that she was required to sign two (2) one-half sheets
of paper and a trust receipt in blank during her transactions with
respondent, which she allegedly failed to retrieve after paying her
obligations, is a bare allegation that cannot be given credence. It is
well-settled that "[h]e who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it
and a mere allegation is not evidence."
In this relation, it should be pointed out that under Section 3 (d), Rule
131 of the Rules of Court, the legal presumption is that a person takes
ordinary care of his concerns. To this, case law dictates that the
natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first
informing himself of its contents and consequences. Further, under
Section 3 (p) of the same Rule, it is equally presumed that private
transactions have been fair and regular. This behooves every
contracting party to learn and know the contents of a document before
he signs and delivers it. The effect of a presumption upon the burden
of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome
the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is
offered, will prevail. In this case, petitioner failed to present any
evidence to controvert these presumptions. Also, respondent's
possession of the document pertaining to the obligation strongly
buttresses her claim that the same has not been
extinguished. Preponderance of evidence only requires that evidence
be greater or more convincing than the opposing evidence. All things
considered, the evidence in this case clearly preponderates in
respondent's favor.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ROBERTO PADRIGONE a.k.a. ROBERTO SAN
MIGUEL, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
HELD:
"4.....it must have been with the intention that the other party
would act upon it.
"No rule of law is better settled than that a party having it in his
power to prove a fact, if it exists, which, if proved, would
benefit him, his failure to prove it must be taken as conclusive
that the fact does not exist."
x x x......................x x x......................x x x
FACTS:
HELD:
No. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the CoA is
endowed with enough latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow
irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable
expenditures of government funds. It is tasked to be vigilant and
conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and
ultimately the people's, property. The exercise of its general audit
power is among the constitutional mechanisms that gives life to the
check and balance system inherent in our form of government.
Corollary thereto, it is the general policy of the Court to sustain
the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is
constitutionally-created, such as the CoA, not only on the basis of the
doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise
in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. Findings of administrative
agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the
decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that
would amount to grave abuse of discretion. It is only when the CoA
has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, that this Court
entertains a petition questioning its rulings. There is grave abuse of
discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of
law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence
but on caprice, whim, and despotism. In this case, the Court finds no
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CoA in issuing the assailed
Decisions.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelee, vs.
JESUS EDUALINO, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
The prosecution presented Marilyn Trayvilla, a Non-Uniformed
Personnel of the Philippine National Police, who testified that on 31
July 2002 at around 6:30 in the morning, while performing her duty as
a female frisker assigned at the Manila Domestic Airport Terminal I in
Pasay City, she frisked the accused Cadidia upon her entry at the
departure area and she noticed something unusual and thick in the
area of Cadidias buttocks. Upon inquiry, Cadidia answered that it was
only her sanitary napkin which caused the unusual thickness.Not
convinced with Cadidias explanation, Trayvilla and her female co-
employee Leilani M. Bagsican brought the accused to the comfort
room inside the domestic airport to check. When she and Bagsican
asked Cadidia to remove her underwear, they discovered that inside
were two sachets of shabu. The two sachets of shabu were turned over
to their supervisor SPO3 Musalli I. Appang. The second prosecution
witness, Bagsican, corroborated the testimony of Trayvilla. Finally,
the prosecution also presented SPO3 Appang who testified about the
incident happened. Based on the testimony of the 3 witnesses, the trial
court found the accused-appellant guilty as charged.
On appeal, Cadidia contended that the trial court gravely erred when
it failed to consider the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses Trayvilla and Bagsican as to who among them instructed
the accused-appellant to bring out the contents of her
underwear. Another contradiction pressed on by the defense was the
recollection of Bagsican that when she and Trayvilla found the illegal
drugs, Bagsican placed it inside her blazer for safekeeping, in contrast
with statement of SPO3 Appang that when Bagsican and Trayvilla
went out of the comfort room, they immediately handed him the shabu
allegedly taken from the accused-appellant. Appellant likewise argued
against her conviction by the trial court despite the fact that the
identity of the illegal drugs allegedly seized was not proven with
moral certainty due to the broken chain of custody of evidence
ISSUE:
HELD:
And even assuming that the said set of facts provided conflicting
statements, the court had consistently held that minor inconsistencies
do not negate the eyewitnesses positive identification of the appellant
as the perpetrator of the crime. As long as the testimonies as a whole
presented a coherent and believable recollection, the credibility would
still be upheld. What is essential is that the witnesses testimonies
corroborate one another on material details surrounding the
commission of the crime.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
No. The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the
party against whom the witness is called. The purpose of cross-
examination is to test the truth or accuracy of the statements of a
witness made on direct examination. The party against whom the
witness testifies may deem any further examination unnecessary and
instead rely on any other evidence theretofore adduced or thereafter to
be adduced or on what would be believed is the perception of the
court thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight
to the testimony of a witness on direct examination merely because he
is not cross-examined by the other party.
It has been stressed quite often enough that the testimony of a rape
victim, who is young and still immature, deserves faith and
credence for it simply would be unnatural for a young and innocent
girl to invent a story of defloration, allow an examination of her
private parts and thereafter subject herself and her family to the
trauma of a public trial unless she indeed has spoken the truth. Most
especially, a daughter would not accuse her own father of such a
serious offense or allow herself to be perverted if she were not truly
motivated by a desire to seek a just retribution for a violation brazenly
committed against her.