This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| However, as correctly argued by petitioners, only Fernando may be held liable for the judgment amount of P1,456,000.00, since Ma. Elena was not a signatory to the Acknowledgment. She may be held liable only to the extent of P600,000.00, as admitted by her and Fernando in paragraph 5 of their Answer; no case against her may be proved over and beyond such amount, in the absence of her signature and an acknowledgment of liability in the Acknowledgment. The rule that the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted, unless the adverse party specifically denies them under oath, applies only to parties to the document.[38] | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, although the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of the defendant, there is no preponderance of evidence on the plaintiff's side if its evidence alone is insufficient to establish its cause of action.[32] Similarly, when only one side is able to present its evidence, and the other side demurs to the evidence, a preponderance of evidence can result only if the plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to establish the cause of action. For this purpose, the sheer volume of the evidence presented by one party cannot tip the scales in its favor. Quality, not quantity, is the primordial consideration in evaluating evidence. | |||||
|
2013-06-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court, therefore, affirms the RTC's opinion that petitioner was not able to establish its cause of action for its failure to submit convincing evidence to establish a case and the CA's position that it must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of respondents' claim. Indeed, in Sapu-an v. Court of Appeals,[45] We held: The general rule in civil cases is that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. By "preponderance of evidence" is meant that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. | |||||
|
2013-06-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| What petitioner has accomplished is only to cast doubts by capitalizing on the absence of documentary evidence on the part of respondents. While such approach would succeed if carried out by the accused in criminal cases, plaintiffs in civil cases need to do much more to overturn findings of fact and credibility by the trial court, especially when the same had been affirmed by the CA. It must be stressed that overturning judgments in civil cases should be based on preponderance of evidence, and with the further qualification that, when the scales shall stand upon an equipoise, the court should find for the defendant.[47] The "equiponderance of evidence" rule states that when the scale shall stand upon an equipoise and there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the other, the court will find for the defendant.[48] Under this principle, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim; even if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of the defendant, there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient in itself to establish his cause of action.[49] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| All petitioner has succeeded in doing, however, is to instill doubts in our minds. While such approach would succeed if carried out by the accused in criminal cases, plaintiffs in civil cases need to do much more to overturn findings of fact and credibility by the trial court, especially when the same had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It must be stressed that although this Court may overturn a conviction of the lower court based on reasonable doubt, overturning judgments in civil cases should be based on preponderance of evidence, and with the further qualification that, when the scales shall stand upon an equipoise, the court should find for the defendant.[56] | |||||
|
2006-01-20 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| PHI was registered on October 5, 1977 with the following five (5) incorporators: Jose D. Campos, Jr. (son of Jose Yao Campos), Rolando Gapud (Gapud), Renato Lirio (Lirio), Ernesto Abalos (Abalos), and Gervacio Gaviola (Gaviola), with 400 shares each, with a par value of P100 per share. The total amount of capital stock subscribed was thus P200,000.00, P50,000.00 of which was actually paid.[5] Its place of business was at 66 United Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.[6] | |||||