Back

Amelia B. Hebron vs. Franco L. Loyola, et al.

AMELIA B. HEBRON, Petitioner, versus FRANCO L. LOYOLA, ANGELO L. LOYOLA, RAFAEL L. LOYOLA, ARMANDO L. LOYOLA, SENEN L. LOYOLA, MA. VENUS L. RONQUILLO, PERLA L. ABAD and the Intestate Estate of EDUARDO L. LOYOLA, CARMELITA A. MANABO, HERMINIA AGUINALDO-ROSAS, DIGNA AGUINALDO-VALENCIA, ROGELIO AGUINALDO, MILA AGUINALDO-DIAZ, BABY AGUINALDO, RUBEN LOYOLA substituted by Josefina C. Loyola, Glesilda A. Legosto, Evelyn C. Loyola, Marina C. Loyola, Aure C. Loyola, Corazon C. Lugarda and Joven Francisco C. Loyola, LORENZO LOYOLA, CANDELARIA LOYOLA, NICANDRO LOYOLA, FLORA LOYOLA, TERESITA L. ALZONA, VICENTE LOYOLA, ROSARIO L. LONTOC, SERAFIN LOYOLA, ROBERTO LOYOLA, BIBIANO LOYOLA, PURITA LOYOLA, ESTELA LOYOLA, ESTER DANICO, EDUARDO DANICO, EMELITA DANICO, MERCEDITA DANICO, HONESTO DANICO, DANTE DANICO, ERLINDA DANICO-DOMINGUEZ repre- sented by Teodoro Dominguez and Beverly Anne Dominguez, EFREN CABIGAN and ISIDRO CABIGAN, Respondents. / ALBERTO L. BAUTISTA represented by Felicidad G. Bautista, Agnes B. Zulueta, Ayreen B. Alba, Joseph Anthony G. Bautista, Ann-Janet G. Bautista and ALFREDO L. BAUTISTA, Unwilling Respondents.

G.R. No. 168960 | 2010-07-05

D E C I S I O N


DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Courts, not being omniscient, can only strive to determine what actually and truly transpired based on the evidence before it and the imperfect rules that were designed to assist in establishing the truth in disputed situations. Despite the difficulties in ascertaining the truth, the courts must ultimately decide. In civil cases, its decision must rest on preponderance of admissible evidence.

This petition for review assails the February 22, 2005 Decision[1] and the July 7, 2005 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 64105. The CA partially granted the appeal before it and modified the...