There are times when the presumption in favor of the judgment  switches to a presumption that favors the appellant.  The appellate court is then required to presume the truth of allegations or evidence in a light favorable to the appellant.

This presumption arises most frequently in appeals from a judgment of dismissal after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend or after granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  In reviewing the case, the appellate court assumes the truth of all facts properly pleaded by the plaintiff.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Kempton v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1347.)  “‘We independently review the ruling on a demurrer and determine de novo whether the pleading alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action. . . We construe the pleading in a reasonable manner and read the allegations in context.’”  (SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Liebert (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 68, 82; citations omitted.) 

It also frequently arises in appeals from a dismissal after an order for summary judgment has been granted.  In reviewing the appeal, the appellate court will strictly construe the moving papers and liberally construe the opposing papers.  It will also view the moving papers in a light most favorable to the losing appellant.  Finally, all doubts about granting the motion are resolved in favor of denial.  “'We are not bound by the trial court’s stated reasons or rationales . . . ‘Summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be used sparingly, and any doubts about the propriety of summary judgment must be resolved in favor of the opposing party.'”  (Kasparian v. AvalonBay Communities (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 11, 19.)