Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. ANGELINA PERONA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 193804 2013-02-27	SPS. NILO RAMOS v. RAUL OBISPO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent. This principle equally holds true, even if the defendant had not been given the opportunity to present evidence because of a default order. The extent of the relief that may be granted can only be as much as has been alleged and proved with preponderant evidence required under Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.[11]
	GR No. 176984 2012-08-29	METROPOLITAN BANK v. TRINIDAD ABAD, J.
Actually, as plaintiffs, the Arguelleses carried the burden of proving the affirmative of their claims (1) that the Trinidads had not fully paid for the land and (2) that they caused the falsification of a deed of sale supposedly executed by the Arguelleses in their favor and used it to transfer the title to the property in their names. Further, by the nature of their action, the Arguelleses must rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defendants.[10]
	GR No. 156686 2011-07-27	NEW SUN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION v. SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In civil cases, it is a basic rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. Parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent.[69]