Rule 131 - Case Digests Dan
Rule 131 - Case Digests Dan
Facts:
Spouses Coronel allege that the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged since
Rodrigo could not have participated in the transaction as he was in Hawaii,
USA during that time.
Issue:
Ruling:
In Lopez v. Bodega City, 558 Phil. 666, 679 (2007), “It is settled that
each party must prove his affirmative allegation, and that mere allegation is not
evidence.”
Facts:
Zeng contends that the prosecution failed to prove a basic element of the
crime charged – that he did not have authority to possess shabu.
Issue:
Ruling:
In People v. Manalo, G.R. No. 107623, February 23, 1994i, “It is not
incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a
negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established
circumstances… the fact that he has a license is a matter which is peculiarity
within his knowledge and he must establish that fact or suffer conviction.”
Facts:
Based on record, there is no showing that Sereno filed her SALNs for
calendar years 1999 to 2009 despite being employed in the government. Thus,
there is prima facie evidence that she did not file her SALNs during these years.
Issue:
Ruling:
Facts:
The petitioner insists that nowhere under Article 390 of the Civil Code
does it require that there must first be a judicial declaration of death before the
rule on presumptive death would apply. Thus, absent any malice or intent, he
must not be held liable for Bigamy.
Issue:
Ruling:
In People v. Vogel, 46 Cal.2d. 798; 299 P.2d 850 (1956), “When the act
or omission defined by law as a felony is proved to have been done or
committed by the accused, the law presumes it to have been intentional.”
Here, the petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent
when he married the private complainant. As a general rule, mistake of fact or
good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by
dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the
law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia
legis neminem excusat.
65. UM v. BSP, G.R. No. 194964-65, January 11, 2016
Facts:
Petitioner argues that the execution of the mortgage contract was ultra
vires. As an educational institution, it may not secure the loans of Saturnino
Petalcorin, a third person.
Issue:
Ruling:
In this case, the presumption that the execution of mortgage contracts was
within petitioner’s corporate powers does not apply. Petitioner does not have
the power to mortgage its properties in order to secure loans of other persons.
66. Sps. Trinidad v. Imson, G.R. No. 197728, Sep. 16, 2015
Facts:
Petitioners argue that when they bought the subject property from its
former owners, they stepped into the shoes of the latter who were the lessors of
respondent and that, as lessee, respondent is barred from contesting the title of
her lessor or her lessor's successor-in-interest, who are herein petitioners.
Issue:
Ruling:
Under Sec. 2(b), Rule 131, Rules of Court, the tenant is not permitted to
deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them.
Facts:
Respondent insists that the CA did not commit grave and serious error in
giving credence to the findings of the NBI document examiner which ruled that
the signature of respondent Gabinete in the Continuing Suretyship Agreement
was forged. He further asserts that the presumption of regularity of a notarized
document is a mere presumption that may be rebutted by evidence.
Issue:
Ruling:
In Heirs of Bucton v. Go, G.R. No. 188395, Nov. 20, 2013, “As a rule,
forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.”
Here, one who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more
convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. In this case, the
respondent was not able to prove the fact that his signature was forged.
68. Palacios v. Amora, A.C. No. 11504, Aug. 1, 2017
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not complainant is entitled for the return of the money paid.
Ruling:
Sec. 3(f), Rule 131, Rules of Court provides that, “The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence: x x x x (f)That money paid by one to another was
due the latter; x x x x”
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Here, appellants' bare denial cannot prevail over Agent Otic's positive
testimony, much less, the presumption of regularity accorded him and his team
in the performance of their official duty.
70. Sps. Hanopol v. Shoemart, G.R. No. 137774, Oct. 4, 2002
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Facts:
Petitioner alleged that the burden to prove that she is not a natural-born
Filipino citizen is on the respondents. Otherwise stated, she has a presumption
in her favor that she is a natural-born citizen of this country.
Issue:
Ruling:
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Here, having established that the total amount of P3M was in her custody
by reason of her public position, it was incumbent upon her to produce the same
upon demand or explain its whereabouts; failing in which, the presumption of
misappropriation arises
74. Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, Oct. 22, 2007
Facts:
Petitioner filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his
birth certificate in the RTC of Manila. He underwent sex reassignment surgery
in Bangkok, Thailand.
Issue:
Ruling:
Here, words that are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-
known meaning is presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context
compels to the contrary. It cannot be argued that the term "sex" as used then is
something alterable through surgery or something that allows a post-operative
male-to-female transsexual to be included in the category "female."
75. Vda. De Jacob v. CA, G.R. No. 135216, Aug. 19, 1999
Facts:
Petitioner could not present the original copy of the Marriage Contract
stating that it was lost. In lieu of the original, Tomasa presented as secondary
evidence a reconstructed Marriage Contract issued in 1978.
Issue:
Ruling:
In De Guzman v. CA, 260 SCRA 389, Aug. 7, 1996, “It is settled that if
the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court,
upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, its contents
may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in some authentic document,
or by recollection of witnesses.”
Here, upon a showing that the document was duly executed and
subsequently lost, without any bad faith on the part of the offeror, secondary
evidence may be adduced to prove its contents.
76.