What is the ruling when one party has two witnesses and the other party has one witness who offers his oath?

Primary text

If one party has two witnesses and the other has one witness who adds his oath, there are two views. The sounder view is that the evidence of the two witnesses takes precedence because they represent an agreed-upon proof, whereas the combination of one witness and an oath is a matter of dispute. Moreover, the oath is the claimant testifying for himself, while complete evidence involves testimony from outsiders, which must be prioritized, just as it is prioritized over the oath of the defendant who denies the claim. This view is considered the more correct one, God willing.