Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

    China Bank v. Ta Fa Industries Evidence Glory

    Uploaded by

    jovani ema
    1) China Banking Corporation provided loans to Ta Fa Industries, which were secured by real estate mortgages. Ta Fa failed to make payments and the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. Ta Fa then filed a complaint to enjoin the foreclosure. 2) The issue is whether Ta Fa has the burden of proof to show they are entitled to a preliminary injunction stopping the foreclosure. 3) The Court ruled that the burden of proof is on Ta Fa, as the party seeking the injunction, to establish that there is a clear right to be protected, there is material invasion of that right, and an urgent need to prevent serious damage. Ta Fa failed to meet this burden.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    China Bank v. Ta Fa Industries Evidence Glory

    Uploaded by

    jovani ema
    150 views1 page
    1) China Banking Corporation provided loans to Ta Fa Industries, which were secured by real estate mortgages. Ta Fa failed to make payments and the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. Ta Fa then filed a complaint to enjoin the foreclosure. 2) The issue is whether Ta Fa has the burden of proof to show they are entitled to a preliminary injunction stopping the foreclosure. 3) The Court ruled that the burden of proof is on Ta Fa, as the party seeking the injunction, to establish that there is a clear right to be protected, there is material invasion of that right, and an urgent need to prevent serious damage. Ta Fa failed to meet this burden.

    Original Title

    China-Bank-v.-Ta-Fa-Industries-Evidence-Glory

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) China Banking Corporation provided loans to Ta Fa Industries, which were secured by real estate mortgages. Ta Fa failed to make payments and the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. Ta Fa then filed a complaint to enjoin the foreclosure. 2) The issue is whether Ta Fa has the burden of proof to show they are entitled to a preliminary injunction stopping the foreclosure. 3) The Court ruled that the burden of proof is on Ta Fa, as the party seeking the injunction, to establish that there is a clear right to be protected, there is material invasion of that right, and an urgent need to prevent serious damage. Ta Fa failed to meet this burden.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    150 views1 page

    China Bank v. Ta Fa Industries Evidence Glory

    Uploaded by

    jovani ema
    1) China Banking Corporation provided loans to Ta Fa Industries, which were secured by real estate mortgages. Ta Fa failed to make payments and the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. Ta Fa then filed a complaint to enjoin the foreclosure. 2) The issue is whether Ta Fa has the burden of proof to show they are entitled to a preliminary injunction stopping the foreclosure. 3) The Court ruled that the burden of proof is on Ta Fa, as the party seeking the injunction, to establish that there is a clear right to be protected, there is material invasion of that right, and an urgent need to prevent serious damage. Ta Fa failed to meet this burden.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    China Banking Corporation v. Ta Fa Industries, Inc.

    G.R. No. 160113, April 30, 2008


    Third Division, Austria-Martinez.

    Facts:
    On different dates, private respondent Ta Fa, Industries, Inc. through its authorized
    signatory, Hung Chen Chen, for value received, signed and delivered in favor for petitioner bank
    three promissory notes. In order to secure the payment of the aforesaid promissory notes, Ta
    Fa executed in favor of China Bank, 3 real estate mortgages. Ta Fa failed to pay quarterly
    amortizations so the Bank instituted a Petition for Extra-judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
    Mortgages with the Executive Judge of the court a quo. Acting upon the petition, the Notice of
    Auction Sale by Notary Public was published and posted. Ta Fa filed their Verified Complaint for
    Accounting/Reconciliation of Accounts, Specific Performance, Write (sic) of Preliminary
    Injunction with Temporary Restraining Order, and Damages against Bank. The RTC granted Ta
    Fa’s application for temporary restraining order and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
    injunction.

    Issue:
    Whether or not private respondent Ta Fa has the burden of proof in showing that they are
    entitled to the relief of preliminary injunction

    Ruling:
    Yes. Under the rule, it is incumbent upon respondent Ta Fa to prove that they are
    entitled to the relief of having the auction sale of their properties restrained. Bank claims that
    respondents failed to adduce proof that they are entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction;
    hence the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the application for said writ.
    For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the plaintiff must be able to establish that (1)
    there is a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, (2) the invasion of the right sought to be
    protected is material and substantial, and (3) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the
    writ to prevent serious damage. (Republic of the Philippines v Caguioa)
    Here, the burden of proof rests with respondents Ta Fa to establish their claim that they
    have a legal right that should be protected by a writ of preliminary injunction. In L.C. Ordonez
    Construction v. Nicdao, the Court reiterated the ruling that “the burden of proof is on the part of
    the party who makes the allegations - ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat. If he claims a
    right granted by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence, relying on the strength of
    his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent.
    In this case, the unreliable and unconvincing testimony of the respondents Ta Fa’s main
    witness is utterly deficient to establish the existence of the aforementioned requisites for the
    issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Hence, the petition is granted.

    You might also like