This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Article 536 of the Civil Code previously quoted explicitly provides for the proper recourse of one who claims to be entitled to the possession of a thing. When private respondents personally took it upon themselves to evict petitioners from their properties, which act was in clear contravention of the law, they became liable "for all the necessary and natural consequences of [their] illegal act."[10] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Preponderance of evidence" means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.[24] Where the evidence presented by one side is insufficient to ascertain the claim, there is no preponderance of evidence.[25] In criminal cases in which the quantum of evidence required is greater than in civil cases, the testimony of only one witness -- if credible, straightforward, and worthy of belief -- is sufficient to convict.[26] With more reason then, Garcia's testimony, if clear and positive, may be sufficient to establish respondent's claim. | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| But a forfeiture proceeding is an action in rem, against the thing itself instead of against the person. Being civil in character, it requires no more than a preponderance of evidence.[11] And by preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. [12] Hence, the factual findings of this Court in its decision dated July 15, 2003 will, as a consequence, neither affect nor do away with the requirement of having to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal cases against her. | |||||