Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NARCISO AMOROSO v. JUAN ALEGRE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 163362 2015-07-08	ALEJANDRA ARADO HEIRS: JESUSA ARADO v. ANACLETO ALCORAN BERSAMIN, J.
The burden of proof to establish the averments of the complaint by preponderance of evidence pertained to the petitioners as the plaintiffs. In that regard, we have discoursed on preponderance of evidence in Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr.,[32] thusly:"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." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. If plaintiff claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. (Bold underscoring for emphasis)
	GR No. 193089 2012-07-09	ROSENA FONTELAR OGAWA v. ELIZABETH GACHE MENIGISHI PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
"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 evidence" or "greater weight of credible evidence."[11]
	GR No. 150284 2010-11-22	SPS. ELISEO SEVILLA AND ERNA SEVILLA v. CA MENDOZA, J.
"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." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth.[6] It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. If plaintiff claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent.
	GR No. 170375 2010-07-07	REPUBLIC v. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Whatever findings the Court made on the issue of ownership in the 1997 Cacho case are mere obiter dictum. As the Court held in Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr.[155]: Petitioner claims in his petition that the 3 October 1957 Decision resolved the issue of ownership of the lots and declared in the body of the decision that he had "sufficiently proven uncontroverted facts that he had been in possession of the land in question since 1946 x x x [and] has been in possession of the property with sufficient title." However, such findings made by the CFI in the said decision are mere obiter, since the ownership of the properties, titles to which were sought to be reconstituted, was never the issue in the reconstitution case. Ownership is not the issue in a petition for reconstitution of title. A reconstitution of title does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title.
	GR No. 155703 2008-09-08	REPUBLIC v. DOMINADOR SANTUA NACHURA, J.
At most, the tax declaration can only be prima facie evidence of possession or a claim of ownership, which however is not the issue in a reconstitution proceeding. A reconstitution of title does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title[16] but merely determines whether a re-issuance of such title is proper.