G.R. No.

125986 January 28, 1999

LUXURIA HOMES, INC., and/or AIDA M. POSADAS, 
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JAMES BUILDER CONSTRUCTION and/or JAIME T.
BRAVO, 

Facts:
Aida Posadas owned a property occupied by squatters. She entered into negotiations with
Jaime Bravo to develop her property into a residential subdivision, and authorized him to
negotiate with the squatters to vacate the property. Later, she assigned the property to Luxuria
Homes, a corporation to which she is a stockholder, and Bravo was a witness to the instrument
to that effect. When Bravo proposed management contracts to Posadas in developing said
property, the latter refused. This made the former demand for the payment of his services
rendered such as the relocation of squatters, preparation of the architectural design and site
development plan, survey and fencing. Posadas refused to pay the amount. She was also
declared in default that the judgment was rendered in favour of Bravo. Hence, the appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the declaration of default of Posadas would render the judgment in favour of
Bravo.

Held:
No, the declaration of default of Posadas would not render the judgment in favour of Bravo. A
judgement by default against a defendant does not imply a waiver of rights except that of being
heard and of presenting evidence in his favor. It does not imply admission by the defendant of
the facts and causes of action of the plaintiff. He who alleges a fact has a burden of proving it
and a mere allegation is not evidence. In this case, since the architectural design, site
development plan and survey to issue permit, approval, and clearance in development of the
property was actually issued to Posadas, she is liable to pay for these services to Bravo.
However, the payment for contracts for the ejectment of squatters and fencing cannot be
granted as there was no evidence to show that squatters were actually ejected from the
property. In the case of fencing, there is no proof that it was accomplished as alleged. He failed
to present evidence showing the area sought to be fenced and the actual area fenced by him.
For respondents' failure to show proof of accomplishment of the aforesaid services, his claims
cannot be granted.