A Although oral agreements are normatively recognized as legally valid under article 1320 of the indonesian civil code, they present significant evidentiary challenges due to the absence of documentary evidence. consequently, witness testimony frequently becomes the primary means of proof, despite often encountering the limitations imposed by the unus testis nullus testis principle and the admissibility of testimonium de auditu (hearsay) evidence. this normative legal research, employing a descriptive-analytical approach, aims to analyze the legal requirements governing witness testimony in indonesian civil procedural law and to examine the judges\\\' assessment of witness testimony concerning an oral agreement in decision number 46/pdt.g/2024/pn btm juncto decision number 65/pdt/2024/pt tpg. the study utilizes secondary data collected through library research and analyzed qualitatively. the findings demonstrate that the evidentiary process requires strict compliance with the substantive requirements for witness testimony as stipulated in article 171 of the herzien inlandsch reglement (hir), whereby the judges applied the principle of non numerantur sed ponderantur to disregard testimony that was not based on the witness\\\'s direct personal perception. nevertheless, the absence of primary documentary evidence in the oral agreement was effectively overcome through the integration of supporting documentary evidence, namely a debt acknowledgment letter and bank transfer records, which mutually corroborated one another and enabled the judges to establish a valid judicial presumption (praesumptiones hominis), thereby ensuring legal certainty and achieving substantive justice.