Practice question
A party explains that a flood prevented timely retrieval of records, but the retrieved document does not support the allegation for which it is offered. Does the explanation alone establish Agapito’s second requirement?
- Every excuse converts speculation to proof
- Yes; a flood proves the disputed transaction
- Only the opponent’s silence matters
- No; the allegation still needs sufficient proof
- The document’s relevance cannot be questioned
Legal references
- Rule1 Section6: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html
- Agapito v. Aeroplus Multi-Services, G.R.248304, April20,2022, MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/apr2022/gr_248304_2022.html
- CIR v. Marily Development Corporation, G.R.263794, April2,2025, MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_263794_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.