"x x x.
In the Gardner case, the witness had repudiated in open court the defenses he had raised in his Answer and that the court found his testimony to be deserving of weight and credence. In said case, both the trial court and the appellate court believed in the witness’ credibility. Here, the reverse holds true as both the trial court and CA found petitioner’s testimony that he applied for a personal loan to be conflicting and incredible. Therefore, we find that petitioner’s reliance on the ruling in Gardner is misplaced.
Finally, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. 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.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[29]
In the present case, petitioner failed to overcome the burden of proving his claim by preponderance of evidence that the questioned Deed is null and void. As we mentioned earlier, the CA did not find any error on the part of the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, which found the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage to be valid and supported by substantial consideration. The trial court also found that since petitioner failed to pay his obligation despite request for several extensions of time to pay his loan, the foreclosure sale of the properties was therefore valid.
x x x."
