0% found this document useful (0 votes)
60 views2 pages

Luxuria Homes v. CA / G.R. No. 125986 January 28, 1999

Luxuria Homes and Aida Posadas appealed a judgment in favor of Jaime Bravo regarding payment for services related to developing Posadas' property into a subdivision. Bravo claimed he was owed for relocating squatters, preparing designs and plans, and surveying. However, the court found that while Posadas owed Bravo for architectural designs and permits, there was no evidence squatters were actually ejected or that fencing was completed as alleged. Simply declaring Posadas in default did not prove Bravo's claims or mean he was automatically owed payment. The court ruled most of Bravo's claims could not be granted due to lack of evidence showing the services were accomplished.

Uploaded by

Mini U. Soriano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
60 views2 pages

Luxuria Homes v. CA / G.R. No. 125986 January 28, 1999

Luxuria Homes and Aida Posadas appealed a judgment in favor of Jaime Bravo regarding payment for services related to developing Posadas' property into a subdivision. Bravo claimed he was owed for relocating squatters, preparing designs and plans, and surveying. However, the court found that while Posadas owed Bravo for architectural designs and permits, there was no evidence squatters were actually ejected or that fencing was completed as alleged. Simply declaring Posadas in default did not prove Bravo's claims or mean he was automatically owed payment. The court ruled most of Bravo's claims could not be granted due to lack of evidence showing the services were accomplished.

Uploaded by

Mini U. Soriano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

125986 January 28, 1999


LUXURIA HOMES, INC., and/or AIDA M. POSADAS, 
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JAMES BUILDER CONSTRUCTION and/or JAIME T.
BRAVO, 

Facts:
Aida Posadas owned a property occupied by squatters. She entered into negotiations with
Jaime Bravo to develop her property into a residential subdivision, and authorized him to
negotiate with the squatters to vacate the property. Later, she assigned the property to Luxuria
Homes, a corporation to which she is a stockholder, and Bravo was a witness to the instrument
to that effect. When Bravo proposed management contracts to Posadas in developing said
property, the latter refused. This made the former demand for the payment of his services
rendered such as the relocation of squatters, preparation of the architectural design and site
development plan, survey and fencing. Posadas refused to pay the amount. She was also
declared in default that the judgment was rendered in favour of Bravo. Hence, the appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the declaration of default of Posadas would render the judgment in favour of
Bravo.

Held:
No, the declaration of default of Posadas would not render the judgment in favour of Bravo. A
judgement by default against a defendant does not imply a waiver of rights except that of being
heard and of presenting evidence in his favor. It does not imply admission by the defendant of
the facts and causes of action of the plaintiff. He who alleges a fact has a burden of proving it
and a mere allegation is not evidence. In this case, since the architectural design, site
development plan and survey to issue permit, approval, and clearance in development of the
property was actually issued to Posadas, she is liable to pay for these services to Bravo.
However, the payment for contracts for the ejectment of squatters and fencing cannot be
granted as there was no evidence to show that squatters were actually ejected from the
property. In the case of fencing, there is no proof that it was accomplished as alleged. He failed
to present evidence showing the area sought to be fenced and the actual area fenced by him.
For respondents' failure to show proof of accomplishment of the aforesaid services, his claims
cannot be granted.

You might also like