Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. NILO RAMOS v. RAUL OBISPO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 190846 2016-02-03	TOMAS P. TAN v. JOSE G. HOSANA BRION, J.
In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence.[40] Moreover, the parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent.[41]
	GR No. 197857 2014-09-10	SPS. FRANCISCO SIERRA v. PAIC SAVINGS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Time and again, the Court has stressed that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence because mere allegation is not evidence.[47] Thus, one who alleges any defect or the lack of a valid consent to a contract must establish the same by full, clear, and convincing evidence, not merely by preponderance of evidence.[48] The rule is that he who alleges mistake affecting a transaction must substantiate his allegation, since it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns and that private transactions have been fair and regular.[49] Where mistake or error is alleged by parties who claim to have not had the benefit of a good education, as in this case, they must establish that their personal circumstances prevented them from giving their free, voluntary, and spontaneous consent to a contract.[50]
	GR No. 200055 2014-09-10	STANDARD INSURANCE CO. v. ARNOLD CUARESMA PERALTA, J.
In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defense offered by his opponent. This principle equally holds true, even if the defendant had not been given the opportunity to present evidence because of a default order.[18]
	GR No. 207176 2014-06-18	SPS. VICTOR v. LUCIA P. ONG REYES, J.
In cases involving mortgages, a preponderance of the evidence is essential to establish its invalidity, and in order to show fraud, duress, or undue influence of a mortgage, clear and convincing proof is necessary.[28]