Section 1 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 1 of Rule 133, unequivocally provides:
SECTION 1. Burden of proof. – 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.
SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. – In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove). (Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank v. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005, 453 SCRA 283, 292).
Undoubtedly, the burden of proof that foreclosure proceedings on the subject properties were not validly conducted lies with mortgagor-party litigant claiming such.
The Supreme Court has consistently applied the ancient rule that if a plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner facts on which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense (Castilex Industrial Corporation v. Vasquez, Jr., 378 Phil. 1009 (1999). (RESORT HOTELS CORPORATION vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and SM INVESTMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 180439, December 23, 2009, NACHURA, J.).
The Supreme Court has consistently applied the ancient rule that if a plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner facts on which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense (Castilex Industrial Corporation v. Vasquez, Jr., 378 Phil. 1009 (1999). (RESORT HOTELS CORPORATION vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and SM INVESTMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 180439, December 23, 2009, NACHURA, J.).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.