Parte. The Court Then Rendered Judgment Granting The Application

Republic v. Vda. De Neri GR No.
139588
March 4, 2004
Topic: When facts in issue need not be proven, exceptions
Facts: A parcel of land with an area of 105.568 hectares located along the Cagayan
de Oro River in Sitio Taguanao, Indahag, Cagayan de Oro City was certified by the
Bureau of Forest Development as alienable and disposable. So the heirs of Graciano
Neri, Sr. filed an application with the then Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental
for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title.
The Court, through the Land Registration Commission, issued a notice of

initial hearing through the Official Gazette. The Solicitor General and the Director of
the Bureau of Lands failed to file any opposition. On the designated day of hearing,
no representative from the Office of the Solicitor General and the Bureau of Lands
appeared in court, prompting the court to allow the presentation of evidence ex
parte. The court then rendered judgment granting the application.
The OSG later on filed a complaint to annul the said judgment. the CA
rendered a decision affirming the ruling of the CFI holding that: (a) the petitioner
failed to prove the material allegations of its complaint; and, (b) the personnel of
the CFI and the Land Registration Commission are presumed to have performed
their duties as the law mandated. The CA denied the petitioner motion for
reconsideration of the said decision. Thus, they elevated the case.
Issue: In an ordinary civil case, to whom does the burden of proof belong?
Ruling:
In ordinary civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the material
allegations of the complaint which are denied by the defendant, and the defendant
has the burden of proving the material allegations in his case where he sets up a
new matter.
All facts in issue and relevant facts must, as a general rule, be proven by evidence
except the following:
(1) Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues.

(2) Facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided
they have been sufficiently alleged.
(3) Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between the
parties; as well as those admitted by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case.
(4) Facts which are the subject of judicial notice.
(5) Facts which are legally presumed.
(6) Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite party
Eastern Shipping Lines v. BPI/MS Insurance G.R. No. 182864

Jan. 15, 2014
Topic: Questions of facts distinguished from question of law
Facts: Through vessels owned by petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. there were
three shipments of steel sheets in coil from Japan for delivery in favor of the
consignee Calamba Steel. However, upon arrival at the port of Manila, there were
coils observed to be in bad condition as evidenced by the Turn Over Survey of Bad
Order Cargo. The cargo was then turned over to Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) for
stevedoring, storage and safekeeping pending Calamba Steels withdrawal of the
goods. When ATI delivered the cargo to Calamba Steel, the latter rejected its
damaged portion, on each shipment.
Calamba Steel filed an insurance claim with Mitsui through the latters
settling agent, respondent BPI/MS Insurance Corporation (BPI/MS), and the former
was paid the sum of US$30,210.32 for the damage suffered by all three shipments.
Correlatively, as insurer and subrogee of Calamba Steel, Mitsui and BPI/MS filed a
Complaint for Damages against petitioner and ATI. Petitioner prayed to be absolved;
that it had no participation whatsoever in the discharging operations and that
petitioner did not have a choice in selecting the stevedore since ATI is the only
arrastre operator mandated to conduct discharging operations in the South Harbor.
The RTC ruled in favor of Mitsui and BPI/MS. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
RTCs factual findings that both petitioner and ATI were both negligent in handling
the goods pointing to the affidavit of the Cargo Surveyor.
Issue: Whether the CA committed an error in finding that petitioner is solidarily

liable with ATI on account of the damage incurred by the goods.
Ruling: The SC ruled in the negative. Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule
that factual questions may not be raised before this Court in a petition for review on
certiorari as this Court is not a trier of facts.
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct
application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts, or when the issue does
not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the
truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt
or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses,
the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their
relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.
In this petition, the resolution of the question as to who between petitioner

and ATI should be liable for the damage to the goods is indubitably factual, and
would clearly impose upon this Court the task of reviewing, examining and
evaluating or weighing all over again the probative value of the evidence presented
something which is not, as a rule, within the functions of this Court and within the
office of a petition for review on certiorari.

Parte. The Court Then Rendered Judgment Granting The Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parte. The Court Then Rendered Judgment Granting The Application

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

Parte. The Court Then Rendered Judgment Granting The Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic v. Vda. De Neri GR No.

The Court, through the Land Registration Commission, issued a notice of

(1) Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues.

Eastern Shipping Lines v. BPI/MS Insurance G.R. No. 182864

Issue: Whether the CA committed an error in finding that petitioner is solidarily

In this petition, the resolution of the question as to who between petitioner

You might also like