This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| When the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt as to which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue.[40] Where neither party is able to establish its cause of action and prevail with the evidence it has, the courts have no choice but to leave them as they are and dismiss the complaint/petition.[41] | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under the rule on preponderance of evidence, the court is instructed to find for and to dismiss the case against the defendant should the scales hang in equipoise and there is nothing in the evidence that tilts the scales to one or the other side. The plaintiff who had the burden of proof has failed to establish its case, and the parties are no better off than before they proceeded upon their litigation. In that situation, the court should leave the parties as they are.[31] | |||||
|
2012-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Respondents as the applicants for land registration carried the burden of proof to establish the merits of their application by a preponderance of evidence, by which is meant such evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing than that offered in opposition to it.[11] They would be held entitled to claim the property as their own and apply for its registration under the Torrens system only if they established that, indeed, the property was an accretion to their land. | |||||
|
2002-06-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence,[23] or that evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is in opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more believable than the other side, and that the probability of truth is on one side than on the other.[24] In the case at bar, respondent has successfully overcome the burden of proof. | |||||