P.T. Cerna Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 91622.

April 6, 1993 Facts: Both parties, petitioner and private respondent Scheider, claim ownership over the three jaw crushers. Petitioner anchored its claim of ownership of the first rock crusher on the "Customer's Copy" dated January 24, 1984 issued in the name of the corporation by Bormaheco., Inc. for P165,000.00. As to the other two crushers, it presented Invoice No. 601-A, dated March 30, 1984, by International Tractor and Equipment Sales, for the total purchase price of P222,000.00. All of these purchases were purportedly paid through the corporation checks duly signed by Noe de la Cerna and Edwin Tiu, its President and Vice-President, respectively. Petitioner's president alleged further that sometime in late 1983, an agreement was entered into by private respondent Scheider to quarry stones and crush them for sale to the public; that he was able to find a suitable land for the quarry and had negotiated for its lease. Private respondent Scheider, as per agreement, was supposed to be the technical man, and was thus in possession of said machineries for a complete check-up. However, allegedly, private respondents Scheider and Bunyi took advantage of their possession and proceeded to organize their own company, together with Scheider's in-laws and other private persons, to engage in the quarrying of stones and rocks and without the knowledge of the corporation, using the litigated rock crushers for said purpose. Private respondent Scheider, on the other hand, claimed that the three rock crushers were actually purchased by him and in reality are owned by him. He presented the "Sales Department Copy" of the same Invoice No. 43984, which was in his name properly countersigned by Mr. Cervantes, the President of Bormaheco. He also presented a notarized deed of sale of said rock crushers executed by Bormaheco in his favor and a further certification by Mr. Cervantes, dated August 3, 1984, stating that the purchaser and owner of said equipment was Mr. Peter Scheider. For the two rock crushers, he also managed to present a notarized deed of sale executed by Mr. Virgil Lundberg in his favor. In connection with this, he presented a delivery receipt and a certification by Mr. Virgil Lundberg attesting that Mr. Peter Scheider is the purchaser and owner of the two rock crushers. Private respondent Scheider, however, admitted that the purchase price of the crushers were paid for by petitioner, but only to set off outstanding obligations of the same to him due to various spare parts sold to petitioner, prior to the dispute, amounting to over P500,000.00. ISSUE: Who, as between the claimants, is the rightful owner? HELD: The Court rule in favor of private respondent Scheider. The issuance of a sales invoice does not prove transfer of ownership of the thing sold to the buyer. An invoice is nothing more than a detailed statement of the nature, quantity and cost of the thing sold and has been considered not a bill of sale. Thus, petitioner's contention that the issuance of the invoices in its name occurred much earlier than the execution of the Deeds of Sale between private respondent Scheider and the vendor corporations, becomes inconsequential. Inasmuch as petitioner's invoices are mere statements regarding the thing sold, as opposed to private respondent Scheider's Deeds of Sale which are public documents, petitioner's claim of ownership cannot prosper. The Deeds of Sale, being notarial documents, are evidence of the facts in clear, unequivocal manner therein expressed. As such, they have in their favor, the presumption of regularity. To contradict facts in a notarial document and the presumption of regularity in its favor, the evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts the affirmative of an issue. In this case, the burden lies on the petitioner, who is duty bound to prove the allegations in its complaint. As this Court has held, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence. A careful evaluation of the evidence presented by petitioner reveals its insufficiency to detract from the evidentiary force of the public instrument which appears on its face, as having been drawn up with all the formalities prescribed by the law. This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that private respondent Scheider is the owner of the litigated properties. To hold otherwise would mean establishing a very dangerous precedent that would open the door to fraud.

Saguid vs. CA, G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003 Facts: 17yrs old Gina S. Rey was married, but separated de facto from her husband, when she met petitioner Jacinto Saguid. After a brief courtship, the two decided to cohabit as husband and wife (no children). Jacinto made a living as the patron of their fishing vessel "Saguid Brothers."5 Gina, on the other hand, worked as a fish dealer, but decided to work as an entertainer in Japan from 1992 to 1994 when her relationship with Jacintos relatives turned sour. In 1996, the couple decided to separate and end up their 9-year cohabitation. On January 9, 1997, private respondent filed a complaint for Partition and Recovery of Personal Property with Receivership against the petitioner with the RTC- Boac, Marinduque. She alleged that from her salary of $1,500.00 a month as entertainer in Japan, she was able to contribute P70,000.00 in the completion of their unfinished house. Also, from her own earnings as an entertainer and fish dealer, she was able to acquire and accumulate appliances, pieces of furniture and household effects, with a total value of P111,375.00. She prayed that she be declared the sole owner of these personal properties and that the amount of P70,000.00, representing her contribution to the construction of their house, be reimbursed to her. Petitioner claimed that the expenses for the construction of their house were defrayed solely from his income as a captain of their fishing vessel. He further contended that Gina did not work continuously in Japan from 1992 to 1994, but only for a 6-month duration each year. When their house was repaired and improved sometime in 1995-1996, private respondent did not share in the expenses because her earnings as entertainer were spent on the daily needs and business of her parents. From his income in the fishing business, he claimed to have saved a total of P130,000.00, P75,000.00 of which was placed in a joint account deposit with private respondent. This savings, according to petitioner was spent in purchasing the disputed personal properties. TC ruled in favor of Gina. CA affirmed. Issue: Whether or not the trial courts decision is supported by evidence Held: Yes. Decision affirmed. In the case at bar, their property regime is governed by Article 148 of the Family Code, which applies to bigamous marriages, adulterous relationships, relationships in a state of concubinage, relationships where both man and woman are married to other persons, and multiple alliances of the same married man. Under this regime, "only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions ..."31 Proof of actual contribution is required. As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the partys own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponents defense. This applies with more vigor where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief. Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence. Both parties claim that the money used to purchase the disputed personal properties came partly from their joint account with First Allied Development Bank. While there is no question that both parties contributed in their joint account deposit, there is, however, no sufficient proof of the exact amount of their respective shares therein. Pursuant to Article 148 of the Family Code, in the absence of proof of extent of the parties respective contribution, their share shall be presumed to be equal. Here, the disputed personal properties were valued at P111,375.00, the existence and value of which were not questioned by the petitioner. Hence, their share therein is equivalent to one-half, i.e., P55,687.50 each. On the basis of the evidence established, the extent of private respondents co-ownership over the disputed house is only up to the amount of P11,413.00, her proven contribution in the construction thereof. Anent the personal properties, her participation therein should be limited only to the amount of P55,687.50.

Macasero vs. Southern Industrial Gases, Phils, G.R. No. 178524, January 30, 2009 Facts: Issue: Held: