Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CESAR MONTANEZ v. NESTOR MENDOZA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183606 2009-10-27	CHARLIE T. LEE v. ROSITA DELA PAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Obviously, the foregoing question is shrouded by a conflict in factual perception, a conflict that is ordinarily not subject to a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. But the Court is constrained to resolve it, because the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the MTCC. Thus, the Court will rule herein on factual issues as an exception to the general rule.[30]
	GR No. 170008 2009-01-19	DUTCH BOY PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SENIEL SUBSTITUTED BY LIGAYA QUIMPO NACHURA, J.
It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence.[22] 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." It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[23] Although the evidence adduced by plaintiff is stronger than that presented by defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in favor of the former, if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action.[24]
	GR NO. 146550 2006-03-17	FELIPA DELFIN v. PRESENTACION D. BILLONES TINGA, J.
As plaintiffs in the action before the trial court, respondents have the burden to establish their case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. Hence, parties who have the burden of proof must produce such quantum of evidence, with plaintiffs having to rely on the strength of their own evidence, not on the weakness of the defendant's.[34]
	GR NO. 168237 2006-02-22	THELMA BUDUHAN v. CURSON PAKURAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
An action for forcible entry is a quieting process that is summary in nature. It is designed to recover physical possession through speedy proceedings that are restrictive in nature, scope and time limits. In forcible entry, the plaintiff is deprived of physical possession by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.[16] It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, which simply means "evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. Hence, parties who have the burden of proof must produce such quantum of evidence, with plaintiffs having to rely on the strength of their own evidence, not on the weakness of the defendant's.[17]