Frederick Felipe V MGM Motor

Frederick Felipe v MGM Motor
G.R. No, 191849 September 23, 2015

Perez , J.
Doctrine of the Case
A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is

presented after the plaintiff rests his case. It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the
effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or
not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.
Facts:
In a Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against respondents MGM Motors and Ayala
Insurance, petitioner Felipe claimed that he purchased on installment basis a Nissan Terrano Wagon
through MGM Motors' authorized representative Sarmiento.
Petitioner allegedly gave a P200,000.00 downpayment and P5,000.00 reservation fee to
Sarmiento. He further issued 7 Allied Bank checks, each bearing the amount of P24,165.00 payable to
MGM Motors. On 14 May 1997, MGM Motors delivered the subject vehicle to petitioner. He then insured
the vehicle with Ayala Insurance and paid a premium of P40,220.67. The vehicle, while parked along
Adriatico Street in Manila, was reportedly lost. He tried to claim from Ayala Insurance but the latter
refused to pay its liability causing damages to petitioner. On the other hand, MGM Motors refused to
produce, despite repeated demands, the document of sale by installment covering the vehicle. The
refusal of MGM Motors to produce the document and its renouncement of the existence of the
installment sale; and the subsequent unlawful insistence on a cash transaction agreement, had caused
damages to petitioner.
In its Answer, MGM Motors denied receiving the down payment of P200,000.00 and P5,000.00
reservation fee paid through Sarmiento. The following is its version of the controversy:
MGM Motors offered Petitioner a discount of P220,000.00 if the latter would pay in cash. MGM Motors
averred that the vehicle was delivered to petitioner on 14 May 1997 but the latter failed to pay in cash,
thus MGM Motors did not give the registration papers to petitioner. MGM Motors sent two letters to
petitioner demanding the payment for the said vehicle but the latter refused or failed to pay. MGM
Motors stated that petitioner was able to fraudulently register the vehicle with the Land Transportation
Office in his name and insure the same with Ayala Insurance. During a negotiation, the parties agreed
that petitioner's obligation amounted to P1,020,000.00. In an effort to settle petitioner's obligation, his
mother Purificacion issued a postdated check for P1,020,000.00 as full payment for the subject vehicle
but, upon maturity, the check bounced.
Ayala Insurance, contended that petitioner had no valid cause of action against it. Ayala Insurance
asserted that petitioner had no insurable interest because he is not the owner of the vehicle that he had
insured with it. Ayala Insurance also counterclaimed for damages.
Trial proceeded with petitioner and his father testifying on the behalf of the former. Petitioner's
testimony was however stricken off the record because he failed to return, despite numerous
opportunities, to the witness stand for cross-examination. Only two pieces of evidence were admitted
by the trial court: (1) the Official Receipt dated 7 May 1998 issued by MGM Motors wherein it
acknowledged receipt of P200,000.00 from petitioner; and (2) the testimony of his father Alberto that
he was present when petitioner paid P200,000.00 to MGM Motors.
MGM Motors and Ayala Insurance filed their respective Motions to Dismiss on demurrer to
evidence.
Petitioner insists that the two pieces of evidence admitted by the trial court are sufficient to
substantiate the material allegations of the complaint. Ayala Insurance argues that the only evidence
submitted by petitioner against it was the receipt of the P200,000.00 that he paid to MGM Motors. The
evidence does not constitute proof of the insurable interest. Moreover, Ayala Insurance asserts that
petitioner also failed to establish the following proof: (1) premium payment; (2) that the insurable
interest existed time of the loss; (3) deed of sale; (4) proximate cause of the loss is one of the perils
insured against; (5) existence of the original insurance policy. Ayala Insurance maintains that Petitioner
failed to establish his case by preponderance of evidence.
RTC: The RTC dismissed the case. The trial court reasoned that the evidence admitted by the trial court
do not prove the material allegations of petitioner's complaint, as well as the alleged liability of Ayala
Insurance,
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC
Issue: Whether or not the trial court correctly granted the demurrer to evidence and subsequently
dismissed the complaint.
Ruling:
Yes, a demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is
presented after the plaintiff rests his case. It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the
effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or
not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.
Rule 33, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the
defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown
no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is
granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence.
The essential question to be resolved in a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff has been able to
show that he is entitled to his claim, and it is incumbent upon the trial court judge to make such a
determination. A review of the dismissal of the complaint naturally entails a calibration of the evidence
to determine whether the material allegations of the complaint were sufficiently backed by evidence.
Well-established is the rule that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations.
There is no dispute that the only pieces of evidence admitted in court are the testimony of Alberto
and the receipt showing MGM Motors receiving P200,000.00 from petitioner as partial payment of
the subject car. The allegation that the purchase of the vehicle was on an installment basis was not
supported by any evidence. The receipt of a partial payment does not suffice to prove that the
purchase was made on an installment basis. Petitioner did not present any document to prove said
allegation while MGM Motors produced a sales invoice wherein it was stated that the mode of payment
is "COD" or cash on delivery. In the same vein, petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation against
Ayala Insurance. Petitioner has the burden of proof to show that a loss occurred and said loss was
covered by his insurance policy. Considering that the trial court only admitted two pieces of evidence in
petitioner's favor and none of those tend to prove loss of the subject car and coverage thereof under the
insurance policy, petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs he had prayed for.

Frederick Felipe V MGM Motor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frederick Felipe V MGM Motor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frederick Felipe v MGM Motor

G.R. No, 191849 September 23, 2015

Doctrine of the Case

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is

CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC

Rule 33, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

You might also like