Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TOMMY v. CRISTINA YAP

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 158143 2011-09-21	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA BRION, J.
Given that PCIB failed to establish Ramos' participation in Balmaceda's scheme, it was not even necessary for Ramos to provide an explanation for the money he received from Balmaceda. Even if the evidence adduced by the plaintiff appears stronger than that presented by the defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in the plaintiff's favor if his evidence still does not suffice to sustain his cause of action;[25] to reiterate, a preponderance of evidence as defined must be established to achieve this result.
	GR No. 176212 2010-10-20	CENTURY SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO T. SAMONTE AND ROSALINDA M. SAMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, it bears to stress that the Certificate of Posting is actually evidence presented by the petitioner to establish that copies of the Notice of Sale were indeed posted as required by Act No. 3135, as amended. Without presenting their own evidence of the alleged lack of posting, respondents contented themselves with challenging the contents of said certificate. As plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 01-1564, respondents must rely on the strength of their own evidence and not upon the weakness of the petitioner's.[27]
	GRNo. 165376 2009-04-16	AMADO BELTRAN v. MA. AMELITA VILLAROSA PERALTA, J.
[23] Ong v. Yap, G.R. No. 146797, February 18, 2005, 452 SCRA 41,50.
	GR No. 178645 2009-01-30	LINA PEÑALBER v. QUIRINO RAMOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It bears stressing that petitioner has the burden of proving her cause of action in the instant case and she may not rely on the weakness of the defense of respondent spouses Ramos. Burden of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil cases. Preponderance of evidence[37] is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[38] Therefore, the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment. For the plaintiff, the burden of proof never parts.[39] For the defendant, an affirmative defense is one which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff's cause of action, but one which, if established, will be a good defense i.e., an avoidance of the claim.[40]
	GR No. 170008 2009-01-19	DUTCH BOY PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SENIEL SUBSTITUTED BY LIGAYA QUIMPO NACHURA, J.
It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence.[22] Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[23] Although the evidence adduced by plaintiff is stronger than that presented by defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in favor of the former, if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action.[24]
	GR No. 170008 2009-01-19	DUTCH BOY PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SENIEL SUBSTITUTED BY LIGAYA QUIMPO NACHURA, J.
It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence.[22] Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[23] Although the evidence adduced by plaintiff is stronger than that presented by defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in favor of the former, if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action.[24]
	GR No. 146428 2009-01-19	HEIRS OF DECEASED CARMEN CRUZ-ZAMORA v. MULTIWOOD INTERNATIONAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, which simply means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[15] However, although the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by the defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in favor of the former, if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's.[16] Whether or not Exhibits K to K-7 are considered or admitted in evidence, the Court finds that Zamora failed to prove by preponderant evidence her cause of action for collection of ten percent (10%) commission on her solicitations of interior construction contracts whether under the Marketing Agreement or any other agreement with the defendant.
	GR No. 171036 2008-10-17	ADELA G. RAYMUNDO v. ERNESTO LUNARIA QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners' abovecited allegation has no merit. By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other.[12] It refers to the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence". It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[13]
	GR NO. 161304 2007-07-27	SPS. ARTURO CONDES AND NORA CONDES v. CA NACHURA, J.
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of evidence.[27] "Preponderance of evidence" means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[28] It is, therefore, premature to speak of "preponderance of evidence" in a demurrer to evidence because it is filed before the defendant presents his evidence. The purpose of a demurrer to evidence is precisely to expeditiously terminate the case without the need of the defendant's evidence. It authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part as he would ordinarily have to do, if it is shown by plaintiff's evidence that the latter is not entitled to the relief sought.[29]