Bacala v.
Heirs of Poliño (xxx)
Month, date, year | Hernando J. | Duty to render judgement ISSUE/s:
1. For purposes of our topic, the issue is: Whether the RTC was remiss in its
PETITIONER: Dioscoro Bacala duty to render judgement? - YES
RESPONDENTS: Heirs of Sps Polino
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Xxx Deed of Sale and
SUMMARY: A complaint for nullity of sale filed by Aproniana against her Agreement and the Deed of Voluntary Transfer are declared VALID. Xxx
brother Juan Polino and his wife Corazon. She alleged that the deed of sale and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED
agreement between her brothers Anecito and Juan ceding Anecito’s land to Juan
was fictitious having no consideration. RTC gave credence to Aproniana’s RATIO:
claim. CA on the other hand reversed the RTC ruling and noted that RTC was There really is no ruling on whether RTC was incorrect. The case just said
incautious in ruling for Aproniana and in merely relying on Aproniana’s claims that courts must render judgmenents upon application of the law on facts,
for the failure of Juan to refute the accusations and without being supported by and facts are ordinarily established by tangible evidence
evidence
1. Aproniana had always insisted on the ineffectivity of the deed of sale and
DOCTRINE: Judgements are rendered only upon application of the law on the agreement due to Juan’s failure to comply with the conditions therein
facts, and facts are ordinarily established by tangible evidence. a. Aquilino and Ducepino’s enjoyment of the fruits of the land
b. Provision for the needs of Aquilino and Ducepino
The necessity of proving lies with the person who sues. Aproniana had
FACTS: never adduced any concrete evidence that Anecito, had never received any
1. Aproniana, as predecessor in interest of Dioscoro Bacala, in the income produced by the subject property. Nothing on record also shows that
representation of Aquilino and Ducepino Polino, children of Aproniana’s Juan truly left Aquilino and Ducepiuno to fend on their own after the death
brother, Anecito, filed a complaint against Juan, her other brother, to nullify of Anecito, or that Juan’s neglect caused Ducepino’s death as Aproniana
an agreement between Anecito and Juan alleged.
2. The agreement surfaced after Anecito’s death. Such agreement states that 2. While courts are in constant pursuit of the truth, judgements are rendered
Anecito is ceding his land to Juan for the price of P15,000. Furthermore, only upon application of the law on facts, and facts are ordinarily
Juan should allow Anecito to have usufructuary rights over the property. established by tangible evidence. It is not all the time that judicial
Lastly, Juan must provide for Anecito’s children, Aquilino and Ducepino. admissions, the parties’ stipulations, or legal presumptions are available or
3. When the document evidencing the agreement surfaced, Aproniana filed a potent to dispense with requirement of proof.
for guardianship over Aquilino and Ducepino. She then alleged that the 3. However sympathetic the courts may be to the plight of a party, one cannot
agreement between her brothers Anecito and Juan was fictitious. According simply claim what one fails to prove before the courts.
to her, the value of the property was for P150,000 but it was sold to Juan for
only P15,000. She also alleged that at the time Anecito and Juan made the
agreement, and eventually on Anecito’s death, Anecito, Aquilino, Ducepino
were living with Juan and his family. And that time, Anecito was already
with illness. In order to support his children even after his death, he sold the
property to Juan and in return for Juan to provide for Aquilino and
Ducepino’s needs. Juan, however, was negligent in his duties which
resulted to Ducepino’s death. Hence, her filing of an application for
guardianship
4. The RTC gave credence to Aproniana’s statements which Juan never
rebutted.
5. The CA, however, reversed the RTC ruling and noted that RTC was
incautious in ruling for Aproniana and in merely relying on Aproniana’s
claims for the failure of Juan to refute the accusations and without being
supported by evidence
