Thursday, April 24, 2014


     Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that “burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.” It is then up for the plaintiff to establish his cause of action or the defendant to establish his defense. Therefore, if the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged because of the negligent acts of the defendant, he has the burden of proving such negligence. It is even presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. The quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence. (Dr. Genevieve L. Huang vs. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., G.R. No. 180440, December 5, 2012, Perez, J.)

Wednesday, April 23, 2014


     Where the defendant failed to either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue or include the same as an affirmative defense, he is deemed to have waived his right to object to improper venue (IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS et al. G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008, Second Division, Velasco, Jr., J.).

Tuesday, April 22, 2014


     Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the exercise of his civil rights, or does not have the necessary qualification to appear in the case, or does not have the character or representation he claims. On the other hand, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action.  The term "lack of capacity to sue" should not be confused with the term "lack of personality to sue." While the former refers to a plaintiff’s general disability to sue, such as on account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any other general disqualifications of a party, the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party- in-interest. Correspondingly, the first can be a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the ground of lack of legal capacity to sue; whereas the second can be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no cause of action. (Nemencio C. Evangelista vs. Carmelino M. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005, Chico-Nazario, J.)

Monday, April 21, 2014


     The Court does not look with favor on affidavits of retraction. Recanted testimony is highly questionable because it can be secured through monetary considerations. It is dangerous for courts to reject testimonies solemnly given before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who made them change their minds later on. Such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Here, the affidavit of retraction was precisely executed by AAA in exchange for financial assistance and land (which she never received). (People vs. Guillermo, G.R. No. 177138, January 26, 2010, Corona, J.)


     under Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief for the party on the judge trying the case. Consequently, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by substantial evidence, in that order. (SIAO ABA ET AL. VS. ATTY. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN, JR., A.C. NO. 7649, DECEMBER 14, 2011, CARPIO, J.).