REPUBLIC vs. CAGUIOAG.R. No. 187488 January 9, 2017

FACTS:The case stems from a Complaint filed by petitioner, represented by the Presidential Commission
onGood Government, for "Accounting, Reconveyance, Forfeiture, Restitution, and Damages" before
theSB for the recovery of ill-gotten assets allegedly amassed by the individual respondents during
theadministration of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Velasco, one of the defendants, was
thePresident and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Oil Company
(PNOC).Herein respondent De Borja is Velasco' s nephew.It appears from the records that PNOC, in
the exercise of its functions, would regularly enter intocharter agreements with vessels and, pursuant to
industry practice, vessel owners would pay "addresscommissions" to PNOC as charterer, amounting to
five percent (5%) of the total freight. 11 Allegedly,during the tenure of Velasco, no address commissions
were remitted to PNOC.Instead, the percentage of the address commission no longer appeared in
the charter contracts and thewords "as agreed upon" were substituted therefor, per instructions of
Velasco. As a result, the supposedaddress commissions were remitted to the account of Decision
Research Management Company.Velasco was likewise alleged to have diverted government funds by
entering into several transactionsinvolving the purchase of crude oil tankers and by reason of which he
received bribes, kickbacks, orcommissions in exchange for the granting of permits, licenses, and/or
charters to oil tankers to servicePNOC.Petitioner claimed that it was De Borja who collected these
address commissions in behalf of Velasco, basing its allegation on the testimony of Epifanio F. Verano, a
witness for petitioner.Respondent De Borja filed his Demurrer to Evidence stating that te evidence
presented wasinsufficient.ISSUE:Whether or not the SB committed reversible error in granting
respondent De Borja's Demurrer toEvidence.RULING:After a judicious review of the records and the
submissions of the parties, the Court rules in thenegative.In a demurrer to evidence, it is premature to
speak of "preponderance of evidence" because it is filed prior to the defendant's presentation of
evidence; it is precisely the office of a demurrer to evidence toexpeditiously terminate the case without
the need of the defendant's evidence. Hence, what is crucial isthe determination as to whether the
plaintiffs evidence entitles it to the relief sought. Nothing in the testimony of Verano reasonably points,
or even alludes, to the conclusion that De Borjaacted as a dummy or conduit of Velasco in receiving
address commissions from vessel owners.The Court joins and concurs in the SB's observations pertaining
to Verano's want of knowledge withrespect to the contents of the envelopes allegedly delivered to
respondent De Borja's office, which

remained sealed the entire time it was in Verano' s possession. As admitted by Verano himself, he
didnot and could not have known what was inside the envelopes when they were purportedly entrusted
tohim for delivery. In the same vein, Verano did not even confirm respondent De Borja's receipt of
theenvelopes, despite numerous opportunities to do so.

BJDC CONSTRUCTION VS. LANUZOG.R. No. 161151 March 24, 2014

FACTS: Nena E. Lanuzo filed a complaint for damages against BJDC Construction. The company was
thecontractor of the re-blocking project to repair the damaged portion of one lane of the national
highwayat San Agustin, Pili, Camarines Sur. Nena alleged that she was the surviving spouse of the late
Balbino Los Baños Lanuzo who figured inthe accident that transpired at the site of the re-blocking work,
resulting in his instant death; and thatthe company’s failure to place illuminated warning signs on the
site of the project, especially duringnight time, was the proximate cause of the death of Balbino.In its
answer, the company denied Nena’s allegations of negligence, insisting that it had installedwarning signs
and lights along the highway and on the barricades of the project.ISSUE:Whether or not it was due to
the negligence on the part of Balbino which caused his death.RULING:Burden of proof is the duty of a
party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish hisclaim or defense by the amount
of evidence required by law. It is basic that whoever alleges a fact hasthe burden of proving it because a
mere allegation is not evidence.Upon a review of the records, the Court affirms the findings of the RTC,
and rules that the Lanuzoheirs, the parties carrying the burden of proof, did not establish by
preponderance of evidence that thenegligence on the part of the company was the proximate cause of
the fatal accident of Balbino. Negligence, the Court said in Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court,17 is
"the omission to dosomething which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily
regulate theconduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable manwould not do.The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded
great weight and respect -even considered as conclusive and binding on this Court.Absent any showing
that the trial court's calibration of the credibility of the witnesses was flawed, weare bound by its
assessment. This Court will sustain such findings unless it can be shown that the trialcourt ignored,
overlooked, misunderstood, misappreciated, or misapplied substantial facts andcircumstances, which, if
considered, would materially affect the result of the case.

NFF INDUSTRIAL CORP VS. G&L ASSOCIATED BROKERAGEG.R. No. 178169 January 12, 2015

FACTS:Petitioner NFF Industrial Corporation is engaged in the business of manufacturing bulk bags,

whilerespondent G & L Associated Brokerage, Inc. is among its customers.According to petitioner,
respondent company ordered bulk bags from petitioner, payable within 30days from delivery. Shortly
thereafter, respndent ordered an additiona one thousang pieces.Accordingly, petitioner made deliveries
of the bulk bags to Hi-Cement. No payment was effected by respondent company. The petitioner sent
demand letters to respondentcompany repeatedly but the latter failed to respond.Hence, the instant
case.ISSUE:Whether or not there was preponderance of evidence in proving that there was a valid
delivery on the part of petitioner in accordance with law, which would give rise to an obligation to pay
on the part ofrespondent for the value of the bulk bags.RULING:Sifting through the testimony of the
witnesses and the evidence submitted, the evidence of petitioner preponderantly established that there
was valid delivery of bulk bags, which gives rise to respondentcompany’s corresponding obligation to
pay therefor. By preponderance of evidence is meant that theevidence adduced by one side is, as a
whole, superior to that of the other side.63 Essentially, preponderance of evidence refers to the
comparative weight of the evidence presented by the opposing parties.64 As such, it has been defined
as "the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence oneither side," and is usually considered
to be synonymous with the term greater weight of the evidenceor greater weight of the credible
evidence.65 It is proof that is more convincing to the court as worthyof belief than that which is offered
in opposition thereto.66 Contrary to respondents’ view, We find that petitioner has successfully
established its case. Accordingly, We give greater weight, credit and valueto its evidence.
BOGNOT VS. RRI LENDING CORPORATIONG.R. No. 180144 September 24, 2014

FACTS:RRI Lending Corporation is an entity engaged in the business of lending money to its borrowers
withinMetro Manila. Sometime in September 1996, the petitioner and his younger brother,
Rolando A.Bognot, applied for and obtained a loan from the respondent. The loan was evidenced by a
promissorynote and was secured by a post dated check.The petitioner renewed the load on several
times on a monthly basis.The last loan was made by petitioner's wife in which she presented an
IBE check as security.Petitioner failed to pay for the loan. Respondent filed a complaint for sum of
money.

ISSUE:Whether or not the petitioner is relieved from liability by reason of the material alteration in
the promissory note.RULING:The petition is partly meritorious.In the present case, the petitioner failed
to satisfactorily prove that his obligation had already beenextinguished by payment. As the CA correctly
noted, the petitioner failed to present any evidence thatthe respondent had in fact encashed his check
and applied the proceeds to the payment of the loan. Neither did he present official receipts evidencing
payment, nor any proof that the check had beendishonored.The petitioner is not relieved from liability
by reason of the material alteration in the promissory note.Even assuming that the note had indeed
been tampered without the petitioner’s consent, the lattercannot totally avoid payment of his obligation
to the respondent based on the contract of loan.Under this evidentiary situation, the petitioner cannot
validly deny his obligation and liability to therespondent solely on the ground that the Promissory Note
in question was tampered. Notably, theexistence of the obligation, as well as its subsequent renewals,
have been duly established.

SINDOPHIL INC. VS. REPUBLICG.R. No. 204594 November 7, 2018

FACTS:This case involves a 2,791-square-meter parcel of land currently in Sindophil's possession.

Sindophilanchors its right to the Tramo property on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 132440, which
was purportedly issued by the Register of Deeds of Pasay City.On July 27, 1993, the Republic of the
Philippines filed a Complaint for revocation, annulment, andcancellation of certificates of title before the
Pasay City Regional Trial Court, and impleaded Sindophilas one of the defendants.Despite the issuance
of certificates of title over the Tramo property, the Republic claimed that TCT No.10354 in the name of
Teodoro was "spurious or of doubtful authenticity."During trial, only the Republic was able to present its
evidence. Defendants Teodoro, Puma, Ty, andSindophil were all deemed to have waived their right to
present evidence when they failed to presentany evidence or witness despite several settings.On the
claim of defendants that they were innocent purchasers for value, the Regional Trial Courtstated that
defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving that they were purchasers in good faithand for
value, thus, rejecting their argument.ISSUE:Whether or not the CA erred in ismissing Sindophil's appeal
for failure to file an appeal brief within therequired period.

RULING:This petition must be denied.The same extraordinary circumstances similar to Bigornia and
Aguam are not present here.a party who has the burden of proof must introduce, at the first instance,
all the evidence he relies uponand such evidence cannot be given piecemeal. The obvious rationale of
the requirement is to avoidinjurious surprises to the other party and the consequent delay in the
administration of justice.A party's declaration of the completion of the presentation of his evidence
prevents him fromintroducing further evidence; but where the evidence is rebuttal in character, whose
necessity, forinstance, arose from the shifting of the burden of evidence from one party to the other; or
where theevidence sought to be presented is in the nature of newly discovered evidence, the party's
right tointroduce further evidence must be recognized. Otherwise, the aggrieved party may avail of
the remedyof certiorari.

ISON vs. PEOPLEG.R. No. 205097 June 8, 2016

FACTS:Ison offered to sell two parcels of fishpond to Atty. Hermenegildo Ramos, Jr. and Edgar Barroga.
Ison persuaded Ramos and Barroga to buy the fishponds after showing them Laguna Lake
DevelopmentAuthority (LLDA) permits and receipts either inher name or in the name of her
husband.Ramos and Barroga were convinced of Ison's ownership of the fishponds and agreed to buy the
same.Thereafter, Ramos and Barroga received a call from a certain Ligaya Tupas who told them that
ColonelPedro Vergara was the real owner of the fishponds.Ison admitted that she first sold the
fishponds to Vergara before she sold the same to Ramos andBarroga. Ramos and Barroga then asked
Ison to return their money but Ison failed to comply. Ramosand Barroga then filed a complaint for estafa
against her.ISSUE:Whether or not deceit, an essential element of estafa has been proven.RULING:The
Court grants the instant petition.Other pieces of circumstantial evidence further cast a cloud of doubt
upon the private complainants'allegation of misrepresentation by Ison. As pointed out by the defense,
Jess was among the threeagents, who introduced Ison to the private complainants. Jess is the father of
private complainantEdgar. It is thus more logical to infer that Jess informed his son about matters
pertinent to the status andownership of the fishponds. Besides, the private complainants visited the
fishponds and talked toGenodipa, the caretaker. It can be presumed that Atty. Ramos knows the
intricacies of the law, hadmade the necessary inquiries as to the fishponds' ownership, and had
observed due diligence and