Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

EVIDENCE 2019

From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo


College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
Rule 131 You call that quantum of proof which we will discuss in Rule 133
and there are different quanta of proof for a specific case or
Aberilla, Bethany Joy (0:00-0:30) issue. Just to give you an overview, remember na lahi lahi ang
quantum of proof.
This is Rule 131, burden of proof and presumptions. Let’s start
off with Section 1. Civil Criminal Admin
Preponderance Proof Substantial
Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the
of evidence beyond Evidence
duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
reasonable
issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by
doubt
the amount of evidence required by law. (1a, 2a)

If burden of proof is a duty, who bears the burden?


Discussion: Take note that Rule 131 Section 1 is a provision that
sets a definition for a particular term. This means that you should The general rule there can be expressed in this Latin maxim:
all memorize this definition given by the Rules not for purposes EL INCUMBIT PROBATIO QUI DICIT, NON QUI NEGAT— The
of recitation but for purposes of the bar examinations. burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
Remember that when the law defines something, the law
expects that you should know the definition. So let’s say you are a victim of reckless driving and you filed a
civil case for damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
In the bar examinations, you’ll be confronted with definition You’re the one who affirms a fact. What fact is that? That the
question. When there are such questions, the examiner would defendant was negligent and therefore you suffered damage
expect nothing less than the definition that the law provides. So because of that. So, you bear the burden of proof in that type of
you have to give either the statutory definition or the doctrinal case.
definition (the definition the Supreme Court provides in
Jurisprudence for a particular term) How about in criminal cases? Who do you think bears the
burden of proof?
What is this burden of proof?
CRIMINAL CASES
This is the reason why we present evidence. Burden of proof
dictates that if you present your case without sufficient evidence, Discussion: In criminal cases, it is the prosecution who has the
you fail. To discharge the burden of proof is the end sought to burden of proof. The prosecution will now try to establish the
be achieved by the presentation of evidence. guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt and there
are constitutional underpinnings when it comes to criminal cases
Simply put, burden of proof or “onus probandi” refers to the because burden of proof is actually set by the Constitution due
obligation of a party to the litigation to persuade the Court that to the presumption of innocence that is afforded to an accused
he is entitled to relief. at the beginning of trial.
Why duty? Take note that the right of the accused to be presumed innocent
is guaranteed by the Constitution and this fundamental right of
Because you have to do it. Kung dili ni siya duty, okay ra diay
the accused is also repeated and embodied in Section 2 of Rule
na wala kay ebidensya. The presentation of evidence is a duty
133 which provides that in a criminal case, the accused is
owed by a party not only to the Court but also to himself.
entitled to be acquitted unless his guilt is demonstrated by proof
Why to the COURT? beyond reasonable doubt.

Because filing a case without presenting evidence makes it PRINCIPLE: Whenever a presumption applies in favor of a
spurious, vexatious, and malicious. Nag file file lang ka pero party, the burden of proof rests in the other. The accused enjoys
wala diay kay ebidensiya the presumption of innocence and that is why the prosecution
bears the burden of proof.
How about the party himself?
Is that really the case? If a party is favored by a
Because if he presents no evidence, he loses his case. presumption, would the other party necessarily bear the
burden of proof?
This is something we should avoid as lawyers because anyway
we’re all going to be Ateneo lawyers (Amen) and Ateneo lawyers EX #1: Article 527 of the Civil Code
do not take losing easily.
Art. 527. Good faith is always presumed, and
What is this amount of evidence required by law? upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a
possessor rests the burden of proof.
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 1 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
Just as settled is the rule that the plaintiff in civil
cases must rely on strength of his or her own
In this case, the principle applies. evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the
defendant. In the case at bench, this means that on
EX #2: Article 1272 of the Civil Code. Pasimio rests the burden of proof and the onus to
produce the required quantum of evidence to
Art. 1272. Whenever the private document in which
support her cause/s of action.
the debt appears is found in the possession of the
debtor, it shall be presumed that the creditor
delivered it voluntarily, unless the contrary is DE LEON v. BPI (November 20, 2013)
proved. (1189)
In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a
The presumption is, naa na sa imuha ang document kay bayad
preponderance of evidence.
na nimo ang utang but it can be proven by contrary evidence.
So who has the burden of proving that with contrary evidence? Once the plaintiff has established his case, the
It is the creditor. burden of evidence shifts to the defendant, who, in
turn, has the burden to establish his defense.
There is an intimate connection therefore that exists between
presumptions and burden of proof. That’s the reason why
burden of proof and presumptions are lumped together under So that is the effect. If you are the plaintiff and you are able to
one Rule (Rule 131) but when there is an applicable discharge the burden of proof, the burden of proof now shifts to
presumption, the burden actually shifts to the party who denies. the defendant to present rebuttal evidence.
Verily, an unrebutted presumption is equivalent to proof already.
Take note that I’m using two terms here. There’s BURDEN OF
Let’s go back to criminal cases. As a rule, the obligation to PROOF upon the plaintiff and now shifting of BURDEN OF
convince the trier of facts to show the guilt of the accused EVIDENCE upon the defendant. Pareha lang ba na? Burden of
beyond reasonable doubt, throughout the trial, is upon the Proof and Burden of Evidence? We’ll look at that later on.
prosecution. However, when the accused invokes self-defense,
the burden of proof rests upon the defense to prove that the How about in a case that is not an ordinary civil case or a
killing was justified. criminal case? What about in a special civil action?

Why is this so? For example, in an eminent domain case, the local government
seeks to expropriate private property has the burden of proving
What are you saying when you plead self-defense. Mura na to show the existence of compliance with the elements for the
siya’g sa civil cases na confession and avoidance. While the valid exercise of the right of eminent domain.
accused in criminal cases enjoys the presumption of innocence,
he is actually confessing his guilt but at the same time avoiding (Discussion on difference between record on appeal and notice
liability by invoking lawful self-defense. In such a case, he is now of appeal)
robbed of his presumption of innocence.
How about in a suit for the recovery of sum of money?
CIVIL CASES
The plaintiff creditor has the burden of proof to show that the
Discussion: Whoever makes an affirmative allegation has the defendant had not paid her the amount of the contracted loan.
burden of proof. A party who alleges a fact has the burden of Conversely, if the defendant admits the debt but defends by
proving it. alleging that it has already been paid, waived or otherwise
extinguished, he has the burden to prove the extinguishment of
PNB v. PASIMIO (September 2, 2015) the alleged obligation. One who pleads payment has the burden
of proving it.
It is settled that the burden of proof lies with the party
who asserts a right and the quantum of evidence What about constitutionality of laws?
required by law in civil cases is preponderance of
evidence. "Preponderance of evidence" is the MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. DSWD (December
weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence 3, 2013)
on either side and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term "greater weight of Whether that line between permissible regulation
evidence" or "greater weight of credible evidence." under police power and "taking" under eminent
domain has been crossed must, under the specific
circumstances of this case, be subject to proof and
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 2 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
the one assailing the constitutionality of the satisfies the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of
regulation carries the heavy burden of proving assumption, passing the burden off to the other party.
that the measure is unreasonable, oppressive or
confiscatory. The time-honored rule is that the For example, in a criminal case, the prosecution carries the
burden of proving the unconstitutionality of a law burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
rests upon the one assailing it and "the burden reasonable doubt. The accused conversely has the benefit of
becomes heavier when police power is at issue." assumption such that if after the prosecution presents its
evidence and the same is not sufficient to convict, the benefit of
assumption (that the accused is presumed innocent) operates
TEST FOR DETERMINING WHERE BURDEN OF PROOF
to cause the acquittal of the accused. He does not even have to
LIES
present evidence. The accused wins.
Discussion: The test for determining where the burden of proof
However, if the evidence of the prosecution is strong, it is
lies is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers
deemed to have established a PRIMA FACIE CASE. Where a
no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis
prima facie case is established, the burden of presenting
for the relief he seeks to obtain. So, general rule, if you’re a
evidence is effectively passed off to the defending party. The
plaintiff and you file a case but do not present any evidence, you
accused therefore must present evidence to establish his
lose. The defendant does not even need to present evidence. It
innocence. We will talk more about prima facie case when we
is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proof.
go to presumptions because the effect of a presumption is
But the defendant bears the burden of proof as to all affirmative already a prima facie case.
defenses which he sets up in answer to the plantiffs claim or
Another example is in a case for damages due to reckless
cause of action; he being the party who asserts the truth of the
imprudence or what is known as a quasi-delict where the maxim
matter he has alleged, the burden is upon him to establish the
RES IPSA LOQUITOR applies. It’s my favorite in all of law.
facts on which that matter is predicated and if he fails to do so,
the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict or decision in his favor. It brings to mind my favorite case because of its simplicity —
Republic vs. Luzon Stevedoring
EX #1: Plaintiff files a suit against a defendant for collection of
sum of money. Plaintiff presents no evidence, he loses. Right? Bridge. Barge. Bangga. Ang bridge wala galihok. Kinsa’y
Plain and simple, he loses. negligent? Ang bridge? The thing speaks for itself. Katong nag
operate sa tugboat or barge ang negligent.
EX #2: Plaintiff files a case against a defendant for collection of
sum of money. Defendant sets forth an affirmative defense of REPUBLIC v. STEVEDORING (September 29,
payment however the defendant does not present evidence. 1967)
Who wins here? It is the plaintiff. Why? Because the defendant
already admitted the existence of the debt. As to the first question, considering that the
Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary
WHERE BURDEN OF PROOF IS FIXED object and uncontrovertedly provided with adequate
openings for the passage of water craft, including
Discussion: The burden of proof is fixed by the PLEADINGS. barges like of appellant's, it is undeniable that the
The claim of the plaintiff, which he must prove, is spelled out in unusual event that the barge, exclusively controlled
his complaint. The defendant’s defenses, which he must by appellant, rammed the bridge supports raises a
likewise prove, are to be found in his Answer to the complaint. presumption of negligence on the part of appellant
or its employees manning the barge or the tugs that
The burdens of proof of both parties do not shift during the towed it. For in the ordinary course of events, such
course of the trial. For example, the burden of proof to establish a thing does not happen if proper care is used. In
that the defendant owes the plaintiff remains with the plaintiff. Anglo American Jurisprudence, the inference arises
The burden of proof to establish that the loan has been paid by what is known as the "res ipsa loquitur" rule.
remains with the defendant throughout the litigation.

What’s the antithesis of burden of proof? In a case where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies, the
presence of facts and circumstances surrounding the injury
It is the BENEFIT OF ASSUMPTION. clearly indicate negligence on the part of the defendant. The
maxim applies whenever it is so improbable that such accident
He who does not carry the initial burden of proof carries the
would have happened without the fault of the defendant that a
benefit of assumption, which means that he needs no evidence
reasonable man could find without further evidence that it was
to support his claim or defense in the meantime. A party who
so caused.

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 3 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
The maxim throws on to the defendant the burden of disproving Q: Is burden of proof the same with burden of evidence?
negligence. This time, it is the defendant who carries the burden NO. Burden of evidence is the duty resting upon a party, by
of proof while the plaintiff has the benefit of assumption. Why? means of evidence, to create or meet a prima facie case. The
Because a presumption applies. burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the
evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence against him. The
TWO SEPARATE BURDENS IN BURDEN OF PROOF burden of going forward with the evidence may shift from one
side to the other as the exigencies of the trial requires and shifts
Guerrero, Gyrsyl (30:00 – 1:00) with alternating frequency. Mag pulihanay mo, plaintiff-
defendant, plaintiff- defendant.

Defense may be force majeure, it wasn’t me, it was God.

The maxim applies, it simply means that it is highly improbable


that the accident occurred without the fault of the defendant. It
was the defendant who was the only one moving and therefore
is the only one capable of being negligent. In that situation, the
law discharges the duty of proving negligence from the plaintiff.

COMPONENT ONERA IN ONUS PROBANDI or SEPARATE


BURDENS

1. BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD – that of producing


evidence;

Illustration of going forward with the evidence: For example,


after the existence of the debt has been proven by the creditor,
the burden of proving payment now devolves upon the debtor.
Where the debtor introduces evidence of payment, the burden
of going forward with the evidence - as distinguished from the
general burden of proof – shifts to the creditor who is then under
the duty of producing evidence to show non-payment. In short,
the burden of going forward is the burden of producing evidence.

Ingana gyud na diba, remember, plaintiff presents evidence in


chief, defendant also presents his evidence in chief, the plaintiff
presents rebuttal evidence, defendant presents surrebuttal
evidence.

2. BURDEN OF PERSUASION – burden of persuading


the trier of facts that the burdened party is entitled to
prevail. Its persuading the court that you are more
believable than the other party.

In a way when you say burden of proving it is mechanical way,


plaintiff, defendant, and in a way it requires a certain quantity of
evidence why? Because the amount of evidence required by law
so in a way, burden of moving forward is less subjective but
compare that to burden of persuasion, kani ang pina
kasubjective sa tanan. Why? because to requirement whether
the burden of persuasion has been achieve or discharge by a
party is only dependent upon the court. Mao na usahay sa kaso,
gwapo kayo imong mga ebidensya, grabe ang mga position
papers, pero daog ang defendants, diba? In labor cases
specially.

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 4 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
should be acquitted. So what usually happens in a criminal trial,
the prosecution presents evidence in chief then, accused
presents his evidence in chief , the prosecution presents rebuttal
evidence if any and the accuse presents surrebuttal evidence.
BURDEN OF PROOF DISTINGUISHED FROM BURDEN OF Now take note that the prosecution after discharging its
EVIDENCE evidence in chief fails to discharge its burden the accused does
not have to present any evidence, he is entitled to acquittal.

Q: What is the remedy of the accused in such case in order


to know if the prosecution had discharged its burden? He
BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
may file a demurrer to the evidence.
Definition
The duty of a party to The duty of a party to provide SECTION 23, RULE 119. Demurrer to evidence. — After the
present evidence on the evidence at any stage of the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on
facts in issue necessary to trial until he has established a the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative
establish his claim or prima facie case, or the like after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2)
defense by the amount of duty of the adverse party to upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without
evidence required by law meet and overthrow that prima leave of court.
(Section 1, Rule 131) facie case thus established.
Shifting the burden Whenever I am defense counsel for the accused, I always file a
Does not shift as it remains Shifts to the other party when demurrer with leave of court, regardless of whether the
throughout the entire case one party has discharged his prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused.
exactly where the pleadings onus probandi or that he has
originally paced it. produced sufficient evidence But this is not applicable anymore. Pero nago ko naga fie?
to be entitled to a ruling in his
favor. If the court believes the grounds I pleaded for the grant of
How to determine demurrer, the case is dismissed. My client walks away. I win.
Generally determined by Generally determined by the If the court thinks that I am simply bullshitting, who cares? Even
the pleadings filed by the developments at the trial, or by if the court denies the demurrer, I still get an advantage because
party; and whoever asserts the provisions of the the court has to extensively rule my demurrer. It has to refute or
the affirmative of the issue substantive law or procedural explain how the prosecution was able to establish a prima facie
has the burden of proof. rules which may relieve the case. In other words, in the middle of the trial, the court, in
party from presenting denying my demurrer, will have to summarize for me the
evidence on the facts alleged. evidence of the prosecution so far. In effect, the court will tell me
Effects of presumption what evidence it believes so far. With this information, I can
It does not shift the burden It creates a prima facie case prepare the presentation of evidence for the defense
of proof. However, the one and thereby sustains the said accordingly.
who has the burden of proof burden of evidence on the
is relieved, for the time point which it covers, shifting it Remember that you cannot change it because whatever
being, from introducing to the other party. It relieves evidence that you have marked or identified during the trial you
evidence in support of his those favored thereby of the are bound by it especially now with the Judicial Affidavit Rule
averment because the burden of proving the fact (JAR). But there is no prohibition daw to file supplemental
presumption stands in the presumed. Judicial affidavits, specially so during pre- trial when both parties
place of evidence. reserved the rights to present supplemental evidences.

(on the shifting of burden) For example, if the court relied on the positive identification of
the witness, I will then prepare my witnesses, brief them or
In civil cases, ang imong defense kay affirmative defense. introduce proof to refute such positive identification. I can still
The defendant will say “oo nangutang ko pero bayad na”. win. I may not win outright but I may still win. All you have to do
during the presentation of you evidence is to make sure that the
So the plaintiff is relieved of the burden of going forward with prima facie case as stated by the court is refuted.
evidence to prove the existence of the debts and now the
burden of evidence shifts upon the defendant to prove na tama Q: What happens if the accused pleads a justifying
to iyang depensa, na nakabayad na sya sa utang. So there is circumstance? Its self-defense, so accordingly the burden
shifting. proof shifts to the accused who must then prove the justifying
circumstance, what’s the quantum of proof required? Clear and
In criminal cases convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self- defense.
There is presumption of innocence that favors the accused, if
the prosecution does not discharged of this burden the accused

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 5 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
In a way it is confession and avoidance. Accordingly, the burden go to trial, the evidence presented during the hearing shall
of proof or to be more technical, the burden of going forward with automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting the
the evidence, shifts to the accused who must then prove the same. (n)
justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and convincing
evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense or in defense of a so kinsay una mu submit ug evidence? Ang defendant.
relative or a stranger. Self-defense, like alibi, is a defense which
can easily be concocted. Evidence presented is automatically reproduced for trial during
that preliminary hearing. But did I not tell you never to file a
Once the accused has admitted, it is incumbent upon him in motion to dismiss? You have to file an Answer with affirmative
order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying defenses because of its inherent advantages. What will
circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and happen? Even if you file an Answer with affirmative defenses, a
convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the weakness of the preliminary hearing will be had thereon as if a Motion to Dismiss
prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, “for even if had been filed. It will lose the plaintiff’s right to amend his
the evidence of the prosecution were weak, it could not be complaint as a matter of right.
disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing.”
Section 6, RULE 16. Pleading grounds as affirmative
In short, a plea of self-defense is an admission that the accused defenses. — If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the
committed the killing but tries to avoid criminal liability by grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded
alleging that the killing is justified. It is an affirmative defense as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of
(confession and avoidance) in civil case. Because he admits to the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a
the killing, the prosecution does not have to present evidence. motion to dismiss had been filed. (5a) The dismissal of the
The burden is effectively shifted to the accused, leading to a complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the
REVERSE TRIAL ORDER. prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim
pleaded in the answer. (n)
Reverse Trial Order
1. The accused presents evidence in chief on his claim on self- So during that preliminary hearing, who presents evidence
defense first? The party who alleges the affirmative defense of payment,
2. The prosecution then presents evidence in chief to refute the for example. Because that is already __ the existence of the
claim (negating self- defense) debt. Now during trial proper, if the affirmative defenses was not
3. The accused presents rebuttal evidence believed by the court, can he change his theory? Can he now
4. The accused presents surrebuttal evidence say that he knows no debt? YES. But he will look silly. For as
long as it is stated in his pleading. He is precisely allowed to do
So now, there is a change in the order of trial. Because the so. That is the beauty of Civil Procedure.
accused admitted the killing, the burden of proving that it was
done in lawful self-defense is now upon him. Therefore the Instance when the burden of proof is fixed upon the
burden of evidence, to initially go forward with the evidence is accused by law?
upon the accused.
In speedy disposition of cases RA 8493, Section 13. Remedy
In civil case, Where Accused is Not Brought to Trial Within the Time
Come to think of it, the same thing happens in self-defense. For Limit. - If an accused is not brought to trial within the time limit
example a defendant in a collection case files a Motion to required by Section 7 of this Act as extended by Section 9, the
Dismiss based on an alternative defense. There will be a information shall be dismissed on motion of the accused. The
hearing. accused shall have the burden of proof of supporting such
motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going
So what will happen? There will be a hearing on the motion to forward with the evidence in connection with the exclusion of
dismiss where the defendant will present evidence to prove the time under Section 10 of this Act.
ground relied upon for dismissal. This happens prior to trial
proper. PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVE AVERMENTS

So gi- admit nako ang utang does the plaintiff needs to present Negative allegations need not be proved whether in civil or
evidence to prove the existence of the debt? No criminal cases. It is an expression of the general rule – “he who
affirms must prove, not he who negates”
Take note under 16, there is a hearing on the motion. At the
hearing on the motion, the party shall submit their arguments. GR: A negative allegation need not be proved.
EX: Negative allegations must be proved.
Section 2, RULE 16 . Hearing of motion. — At the hearing of
the motion, the parties shall submit their arguments on the 1. When such negative allegations are essential parts of a cause
questions of law and their evidence on the questions of fact of action or defense in a civil case or
involved except those not available at that time. Should the case

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 6 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
2. When negative allegations are essential ingredients of an
offense in a criminal case or the defenses thereto.
BASIS
Fabe, Isabelle (1:00-1:31)
Article III of 1987 Constitution. Section 1. No person shall be
What are examples of negative allegations that are deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
ingredients of the offense? nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Example of illegal possession of firearms, you don’t have a Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there
license that’s negative. But you need to prove it. Why do you is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party
need to prove it? Because it is an element of the offense. having the burden of proof fails upon that issue. Therefore, as
neither party was able to make out a case, neither side could
What’s the example of an ingredient of an offense that is
establish its cause of action and prevail with the evidence it had.
negative? Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
They are thus no better off than before they proceeded to
person defending himself.
litigate, and, as a consequence thereof, the courts can only
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION leave them as they are.

In civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an essential part Again, what do we have to remember? Status quo – because
of the cause of action or defense, it doesn’t have to be proved, evidence is equal. In short, where evidence is in equipoise the
if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a court should rule in favor of the defending party because the
document. It should be properly plead in the custody of the claimant was unable to discharge the burden or defeat the
person. presumption, the parties would stand as if the case was never
there.
Just Take note of that in the case of Regalado, it’s in my book.
In labor cases, if doubt exists between the evidence presented
DOCTRINE OF EQUIPOISE OR DOCTRINE OF by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be
EQUIPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. tilted in favor of the latter. Again, the quantum of proof is not
equal to the parties here.
The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the
parties are evenly balanced, where there is doubt on either sides In criminal cases, their required quantum of proof is not equal.
of the preponderates. The prosecution— proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
accused—only reasonable doubt.
In this case, the decision should be against the party who has
the burden of proof, hence where the burden of proof is on the In labor cases how does an employee prove illegal dismissal?
plaintiff and the evidence does not suggest the scale of justice What’s the quantum of proof required?
should weigh on his favor, the court should render a verdict in
favor of the defendant. substantial evidence or such amount of evidence as is sufficient
to support a conclusion as a reasonable mind might accept to
How do we simplify this? Let’s say there’s this boxing match – support the conclusion. (ANG TIBAY vs. CIR). The test there is
reasonableness.
Champion vs. Challenger, the score of the judges are the
same— If you are the employer, you want to refute the claim of illegal
dismissal, what’s your quantum of proof if you recall your labor
Meaning even based on the score cards. Who is the champion? law? is it substantial evidence? No. the quantum of proof is
Still the champion. Same thing with happened to the case of different. It’s clear and convincing evidence.
Cruz vs. DENR Secretary? Constitutionality of the Indigenous
People’s Rights Act. The petitioners there were Isagani Cruz If the standard of the employee is simply reasonableness of
and Cesar Europa, challenging the IPRA. 5 Justices voting in evidence, what about the employer? It’s persuasiveness weight
favor – and 5 justices still voting in favor, what happens to the of evidence— clear and convincing. That quantum of proof is
law? is it declared unconstitutional? Of course not, it is still the heavier compared to substantial evidence.
status quo. Same thing in a boxing match— if it’s even, it’s still
the champion. Same thing with litigation. BAR QUESTION 1995

What’s the status quo? The defendant has no liability. the Explain the equipoise doctrine and cite its constitutional
evidence is in equipoise. Who has the burden of proving? basis.
Plaintiff—plaintiff loses. Why? Because it is the plaintiff who tries
to break the status quo.

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 7 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
Take note this is an unfair question. It is a remedial question that discretionary on the court as derived from circumstances of
calls for answer in constitutional law/political law. let’s go to the case through common experience of mind. An
presumptions. assumption of fact does not arise from any direction of the
law. It arises because reason itself allows a presumption
Take note what need not be proved in Rule 129— from the facts.

1. judicial admission, Suppose I punched Vicco, is there any presumption of law


2. judicial notice and that applies? If I punch him, the law presumes, nothing. But
3. facts that are legally presumed. there is a presumption of fact that can be based on human
experience. I punched him because maybe I don’t like him
PRESUMPTION or maybe he’s done something wrong. That’s a
presumption of fact. There’s no directive from the law for
A presumption is an inference as to the existence or non- you to presume a certain way.
existence of fact which courts are permitted to draw from the
proof of other facts. A presumption is an assumption of fact CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION— not permitted to be
solely from the rule of law which requires such facts to be overcome by any proof to the contrary. a presumption is
assumed from another fact or group of found or otherwise conclusive when the presumption becomes irrebuttable upon
established in the action. the presentation of evidence and any evidence tending to rebut
the presumption is not admissible. The presumption is in reality
Is presumption evidence? No. it is not evidence but it affects the one of substantive law—it has the effect of a substantive law.
burden of offering evidence. It is not evidence in itself but it is an you are not allowed to refute
assumption resulting from the evidence.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION— which the law permits to be
Take note, there is evidence then you presumed. Evidence overcome or controverted. A presumption is disputable or
creates the presumption. rebuttable if it may contradicted or overcome by other evidence.
In other words, you can defeat the disputable presumption.
Example: X is creditor of C for 1M payable in 12 equal monthly When evidence rebuts the presumption is introduced, the force
installments, if evidence is introduced that installment payment of the presumption disappears.
is on December has been received by the creditor what’s the
presumption is created in obligations and contracts? that the Going back to our example based on Article 1176, that evidence
previous installments have been paid. What’s the fact you’re of receipt of payment of a later installment gives rise to the
presenting? The fact that you paid on December. What’s the presumption that the previous installments have been paid but
presumption established? Previous installments have been evidence is shown that prior installments remain unpaid, the
paid, this is because of a law that receipt of a later installment presumption fails.
without reservation of a prior installments shall give rise to the
presumption that such installments have been paid. It does not PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE – a latin expression meaning on its
necessarily follow that there is a presumption applicable, you first appearance or by its first instance at first sight. Love prima
don’t have to do anything. You still prove something, you still facie, love at first sight
present evidence. From that evidence that you already
presented that’s where the presumption comes from. It is used in law to signify that on first examination a matter
appears to be self-evident of the facts. In common-law
Take note there are different presumptions: jurisdictions, prima facie denotes which unless rebutted, would
be sufficient to prove a particular proposition of fact. Sounds
familiar? It has more or less the same definition with disputable
1. PRESUMPTION OF LAW —it is a deduction which the law
presumption. That’s their relationship.
expressly directs to be made from particular facts. A
presumption of law is an assumption which the law requires
to be made from the set of facts. It must be made whenever Establishing a prima facie case meaning establishing or making
the facts appear which furnish the basis of the inference. a case –example, a trial in criminal law, the prosecution has the
Such type of presumption is reduced to fixed rules and form burden of presenting prima facie evidence on each element of
part of the system of rules. the crime charged against the accused. If the burden is
discharged, a prima facie case is established.
2. PRESUMPTION OF FACT— a deduction which reason
draws from facts proved without an express direction from In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim
the law to that event. A presumption is one of fact when was in fact dead, that the defendant’s act caused death and
assumption is made from the facts without any direction or evidence that the defendant acted with criminal intent. If no party
positive requirements of the law as such is totally
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 8 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
produces new evidence, the case stands or falls simply by the is now applicable is that, the title of your land lord is conclusive
prima facie evidence. upon you. You cannot deny that. You cannot refute that.

To conclude, when a prima facie case is established it means CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION—an inference of the law which
that the party with the initial burden of proof has discharged it. It it makes so preemptory that it will not allow it to be overturned
means that the burden of evidence has now shifted to the other by contrary proof however strong.
party who must present evidence to meet the prima facie case
against him. If he presents no evidence, he loses the case. It It is an artificially compelling force which requires a trier of facts
almost has the same effect with presumption, but it has a to find such facts conclusively presumed which renders
correlation. evidence to the contrary inadmissible. It is sometimes referred
to as irrebutable presumption.
A presumption in a way establishes a prima facie case. Why?
They have the same definition. If unrebutted, is sufficient to Conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court are based on
support the conclusion. If there’s a disputable presumption – res the Doctrine of Estoppel. Under this doctrine, the person making
ipsa loquitor, that’s supposed to be disputable but if the the representation cannot claim benefit from the wrong he
defendant does not present any evidence that he was not himself committed.
negligent a prima facie case is deemed established, plaintiff
wins. Under section 21, as an example, the Corporation Code—
persons who assume to be a corporation without legal authority
If it’s a conclusive presumption you have to present evidence. to act as such can be considered a corporation by estoppel and
shall be liable as general partners.
Section 2. Conclusive Presumptions. – The following are
instances of conclusive presumptions: Section 21. Corporation by estoppel. — All persons who assume
to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do
Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities and
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular damages incurred or arising as a result thereof; Provided,
thing is true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any however, that when any such ostensible corporation is sued on
litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be any transaction entered into by it as a corporation or on any tort
permitted to falsify it. committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a
defense its lack of corporate personality.
This the DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. I said
something to you and because I said something to you, you One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as
acted on it (maybe you parted with money, you bought some such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there
thing on the promise it is okay). was in fact no corporation.

What do you prove? What is that evidence you are still required
to present? The declaration or act or omission. If the declaration
or act or omission is established. You cannot anymore refute that you were acting as a
corporation. You really have liability.
What happens? The law will now presume based on the doctrine
of promissory estoppel. Take note as well there are other conclusive presumptions.

The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his land lord at the JARCO MARKETING vs. COURT OF APPEALS
time of the commencement of the relation of land-lord and tenant
between them. There’s a conclusive presumption that a person under 9 years
of age, cannot act with discernment – there’s no discernment at
“I will rent your boarding house” and then you are able to rent, all. No matter how you try to prove it.
what is that? You are actually admitting that the person you
approached is the owner of the boarding house. Now at the time Therefore, the rule, a child under 9 years of age is also
of payment, “who are you, are you the owner?”. conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence.

What do you present? Evidence of establishment of tenant-land


You remember my example with my son— giving 50 pesos
lord relationship. What’s the effect? What’s the conclusive
Pepito. And he was 7 years old. 
presumption that takes place? The conclusive presumption that
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 9 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
Take note of the Pangilinan Law that changed the criminal be; and, in such case, the delivery may be shown
responsibility of children. Does it still apply? under the RPC to have been conditional, or for a special purpose
which the Pangilinan law amends, below 9, with or without only, and not for the purpose of transferring
discernment, exempt from criminal liability. 9-15, would be the property in the instrument. But where the
amenable to proof of discernment so it won’t be exempt from instrument is in the hands of a holder in due
liability. course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior
to him so as to make them liable to him is
conclusively presumed. And where the instrument
PEOPLE vs GAA is no longer in the possession of a party whose
signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional
Proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary as they delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is
are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the proved.
absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the
victim is below the age of 12 in the crime of statutory rape. Conclusive presumption gihapon. Akong pangutana simple
lang: kung conclusive ang presumption, can you rebut it?
You cannot, diba? It is not susceptible of proof no matter
Section 48 of CA 141 in relation to Section 14 (1) of PD1529
how strong it is.

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in- Sir shares his debate with his wife, Maam YY, the former
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious being a procedural law professor (Evidence) and the latter
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of being a substantive law professor (Succession):
the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the When the law does not say that it is conclusively
application for confirmation of title except when prevented by presumed, it is susceptible to contrary proof. Kung
war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to dili ginaingon sa balaod na conclusive siya, pwede
gyud na nimo irefute. Maam YY tells him that the
have performed all the conditions essential to Government grant
law on succession is based on conclusive
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions
presumption. Does the law tell that it is conclusive
of this chapter. or disputable presumption? Let us say for
example, the presence of children excludes the
parents. Can parents present evidence to prove
that they are preferred over the children? Unya ang
What’s this PD1529? PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE mga children kay walay buot. You cannot. Why?
Because the law presumes that the children are
(b) that an unlawful act was done with unlawful intent always preferred over the grandparents. You
cannot present evidence. Art 992 of the New Civil
INTENT TO KILL Code pa lang daan. What is the basis of that? It is
the presumed animosity between the legitimate
BITOL vs. PEOPLE and illegitimate. Can you prove that there is no
animosity?
If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor’s intent to If it is conclusively presumed na naay presumed
kill is conclusively presumed because otherwise, if the intention to animosity, then you cannot prove otherwise. But if
wound, why would the victim die? So the intent to kill is conclusively it is only a disputable presumption, then you can
presumed in that situation present contrary proof. Mao na among lalis. Kay
pag wala giingon sa law na conclusive, disputable
gyud na siya kay limited ang conclusive
presumption. Pero ang giingon ni Maam YY kay the
Lara, Marion ( 1:31-2:00)
entire law on succession is based in conclusive
presumption, or the Law on Intestacy, at least, are
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW
all based on conclusive presumptions.
Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when presumed.
- Every contract on a negotiable instrument is Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are
incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instances of conclusive presumptions:
instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto.
As between immediate parties and as regards a (a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
remote party other than a holder in due course, the omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe
delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in
either by or under the authority of the party making, any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as the case may permitted to falsify it:
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 10 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at That is supposed to be an absolute rule, but through
the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant jurisprudence, nidaghan ang exceptions. Supposed to be kung
between them. (3a) conclusive, dili na pwede irefute, pero based on jurisprudence,
naay exception.
FIRST CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION
EXCEPTIONS
Now let us go to the first conclusive presumption: ESTOPPEL.
Estoppel in admission or representation is rendered conclusive 1. In a case where the landlord-tenant relationship has
upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved not been sufficiently established or where the very
as against the person relying thereon. existence of the relationship is the very issue of the
case. For example, in the case of:
DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (Danilo Mendoza
vs CA, GR no 116710) CONSUMIDO VS ROS
According to that doctrine, an estoppel may arise from the GR. No. 166875, July 31, 2007
making of a promise, even though without consideration, if it was
intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact it The conclusive presumption set forth in Rule 131, Section 2(b)
was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it would be virtually of the Rules of Court applies only when the landlord and tenant
to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other relationship has been sufficiently established. In the case at bar,
injustice. In this respect, the reliance by the promisee is this is precisely the issue to be resolved as petitioner has
generally evidenced by action or forbearance on his part, and consistently alleged that there was no lease agreement between
the idea has been expressed that such action or forbearance the parties. Moreover, respondents themselves have not
would reasonably have been expected by the promissor. asserted ownership over the leased premises, the truth of the
matter being that respondents were never the registered owners
In order to make out a claim of promissory estoppel, a party of the leased premises.
bears the burden of establishing the following elements:
(1) a promise reasonably expected to induce action or DISCUSSION: The conclusive presumption does not apply in
forebearance; the case where the landlord-tenant relationship has not been
(2) such promise did in fact induce such action or forebearance, sufficiently established or where the very existence of the
and relationship is the very issue in the case. remember diba, you
(3) the party suffered detriment as a result. have to prove threshold facts in order for the conclusive
presumption to apply. So kung wala nimo naprove, dili siya
DISCUSSION: In order for that conclusive presumption to apply, applicable or the very existence of the relationship is the issue
you still have to present evidence. Kaning evidence on elements in the case, the conclusive presumption does not apply.
of promissory estoppel.
2. If there was a change in the nature of the title of the
SECOND CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION landlord during the subsistence of the lease, the
presumption does not apply.
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the
time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant Sa sugod siya gyud ang tag-iya sa yuta pero in the middle of the
between them. lease, nagchange ang ownership through sale, assign or
giquestion iyang title, etc. that can be rebutted by contrary proof.
Related to the second kind of conclusive presumption is Article Example is the case of SANTOS VS NATIONAL STATISTICS
1436 on Commodatum and Lease: OFFICE, April 6, 2011.
Art. 1436. A lessee or a bailee is estopped from
asserting title to the thing leased or received, as Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following
against the lessor or bailor. presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
DATALIFT MOVERS VS BELGRAVIA REALTY (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
GR No. 144268, August 30, 2006 (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his
Conclusive presumptions have been defined as "inferences voluntary act;
which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
be overturned by any contrary proof however strong." As long (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
as the lessor-lessee relationship between the petitioners and produced;
Belgravia exists as in this case, the former, as lessees, cannot (f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
by any proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the
presumption that Belgravia has valid title to or better right of latter;
possession to the subject leased premises than they have. (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 11 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a
for the later one is produced; summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent
whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or spouse.
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
money or delivered the thing accordingly; (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
or elected to it; (z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed; contract of copartneship;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
jurisdiction; (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with
before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage
all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for or under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by work or industry.
them; (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular; are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed; properly through their actual joint contribution of money,
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract; property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit
sufficient consideration; are equal.
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made
before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted
instrument is dated; another marriage within three hundred days after such
(u) That a writing is truly dated; termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the the absence of proof to the contrary:
regular course of the mail; (1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born
whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
all purposes, except for those of succession. marriage.
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have
opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born
disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be marriage.
opened.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes usual with things of the nature;
including the division of the estate among the heirs: (ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an (gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed
aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for four years or published by public authority, was so printed or published;
since the loss of the vessel or aircraft; (hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is
hostilities, and has been missing for four years; published, contains correct reports of such cases;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other (ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey
circumstances and whose existence has not been known for real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to
four years; him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive such person or his successor in interest;
years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage
if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is (jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons
already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided, an conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are
absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 12 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following
rules: Persons engaged in a trade or business are presumed to be
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is acquainted with the general customs, usages, and other facts
deemed to have survived; necessarily incident to the proper conduct of business.
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to
have survived; (r)That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is (s)That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
deemed to have survived; sufficient consideration;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different,
the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the Just take note of letter (r) and letter (s). Two presumptions.
older; These two presumptions are related to Article 1344.
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between
those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived. Article 1354. Although the cause is not stated in
the contract, it is presumed that it exists and is
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons lawful, unless the debtor proves the contrary.
who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died (1277)
first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be Making it what type of presumption? Merely disputable.
considered to have died at the same time. (5a)
(t)That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made
This is the longest provision. Hastang daghana. before the instrument was overdue and at the place where
the instrument is dated;
NOTE: Please refer to Evidence Explained, pages 555-579
since the discussion is the same. No additional substantial A holder of a negotiable instrument is always presumed to be a
information. holder in due course.

Only up to letter (p) for this assignment (pls not include (u)That a writing is truly dated;
notes in final TSN)
(v)That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
Martinez, Mizzy (2:00 – 2:31:12) regular course of the mail;

Now take note that when a mailed letter is sent by registered


(p)That private transactions have been fair and regular; mail, there exists a presumption under Rule 131 that it was
received in the regular course of mail.
This is the presumption of regularity in private transactions. This
is a presumption that all men act fairly, honestly, in good faith, “The facts to be proved in order to raise this presumption are:
and that the individual intends to do right rather than wrong and a. That the letter was properly addressed with postage
intends to do only what he has the right to do under the prepaid, and
circumstances. b. That it was mailed.”

Good faith is always presumed, and it is the burden of the party While a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in
claiming otherwise to adduce clear and convincing evidence to the ordinary course of mail, it is still merely a disputable
the contrary. presumption. Especially so because of how slow our postal
service actually is.
These are related to presumptions. Like, kaning fraud. Diba
fraud cannot be presumed and fraud must be proven by clear Take note that in Civil Procedure Rule 13, Section 3, there is
and convincing evidence. also this rule that the date of mailing shall be considered the
date of filing if it is by registered mail. Pag regular mail or private
(q)That the ordinary course of business has been followed; courier service, ang rule is the date of receipt is the date of filing.

Again, this is a presumption in relation to regularity. (w)That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown
whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered
And this is also one of the reasons why we have kana bitaw dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
exception to the hearsay rule – entries in the course of business.
And also as an exception to the best evidence rule – regular The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose
course of business lang gihapon. of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years.
If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an
So, the presumption is same as to regularity. It covers both absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his
public and private transactions. succession may be opened.

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 13 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
Third exception, 4 years lang pwede na siya to presume a
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes person dead for all purposes including the opening of the
including the division of the estate among the heirs: succession under circumstances when there is danger of death:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea 1. On board a ship
voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not 2. Hostilities at war
been heard of for four years since the loss of the 3. Force majeure
vessel or aircraft; 4. Flood, earthquake
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part
in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four Fourth, where there is a danger of death, an absence of only 2
years; years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under subsequent marriage. 2 years lang.
other circumstances and whose existence has not
been known for four years; Now take note that there is a provision under the Family Code,
(4) If a married person has been absent for four Article 41:
consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be
already death. In case of disappearance, where null and void, unless before the celebration of the
there is a danger of death the circumstances subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been
hereinabove provided, an absence of only two absent for four consecutive years and the spouse
years shall be sufficient for the purpose of present has a well-founded belief that the absent
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in spouse was already dead. In case of
any case, before marrying again, the spouse disappearance where there is danger of death
present must institute a summary proceedings as under the circumstances set forth in the provisions
provided in the Family Code and in the rules for of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, two years shall be sufficient.
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
the absent spouse. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death, an
absence of only 2 years shall be sufficient. But generally, 4
Kani. Presumption na tag-as unya mga importante pa gyud na years.
presumption. Di na nako basahon. Akong buhaton, isummarize
nalang nako ang rules in relation to the so-called presumptive Take note of the term “well-founded belief that the absent
death. spouse was already dead.”

So, what is presumptive death? It is death inferred from proof of So, duha ka period under Article 41 of the Family Code.
a person’s long unexplained absence. Such a presumption
arises by prolonged absence of a person for a prescribed For the purpose of contracting the subsequent
number of years during which no one has seen or heard from marriage under the preceding paragraph the
the person and there is no reason for the person’s spouse present must institute a summary
disappearance that would be incompatible with the finding that proceeding as provided in this Code for the
the individual is dead. declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
So, summarize nalang nato kay taas kaayo ni siya na the absent spouse. (83a)
presumption.
So, imagine the situation. I don’t remember the legal
The general rule is 7 years. The absentee is presumed dead for impetus. But the situation is there is this woman who was
all purposes after an absence of 7 years. 7 years gyud siya. married and then absent, presumed lost at sea during a sea
voyage. Pakasal siya usab after a period of 2 years. And
But exceptions dapat atong timan-an. then he re-apeared. Duha iyang bana.

First, 10 years if the purpose is to open his succession. Meaning, CASE: REPUBLIC vs SARENOGON(Feb. 10, 2016)
mag-extra judicial partition na ta sa estate kung walay will or
magprobate na ta sa will, isettle na ang iyahang estate. The “well-founded belief” requisite under Article 41 of the
Mubayad na ta ug estate tax. 10 years. Family Code is complied with only upon a showing that
sincere honest-to-goodness efforts have indeed been
Second, if the absentee after the age of 75 years, instead of 7 made to ascertain whether the absent spouse is still alive
years, 5 years will be sufficient in order that his succession may or is already dead.
be opened.

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 14 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
It is not enough that nagtuo lang ka na patay na kay absent siya Is it possible for a fetus to have an intrauterine life above 9
for the longest time. Dapat imo gyud gipangita and gi-ascertain. months? Yes. The average worldwide is actually 274 days.

(x)That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing Possible naman siya na mmu-abot 300days and many a journal
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact; will tell you na the longest intrauterine life sa fetus is 300 days.
This is based on medical fact.
So, whatever that means.
So what are these presumptions?
(y)That things have happened according to the ordinary
course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life; (1)A child born before one hundred eighty days
after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage
So, meaning kung malinog then guba ang balay, ana ra na. is considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the three
(z)That persons acting as copartners have entered into a hundred days after the termination of the former
contract of copartneship; marriage.
(aa)That a man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of Take note that there is a similar provision under Article 168 of
marriage; the Family Code which is a reproduction of what the Civil Code
provides. Take note that there is no presumption of legitimacy
Recall the exception to the hearsay rule – common reputation in or illegitimacy when a child is born after 300 days following the
relation to marriage. So what is the presumption that arises if dissolution of marriage or the separation of the spouses.
you see them together as husband and wife purporting Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy must prove such.
themselves to be husband and wife? That they are husband and
wife. You don’t ask questions. (2)A child born after one hundred eighty days
following the celebration of the subsequent
(bb)That property acquired by a man and a woman who marriage is considered to have been conceived
are capacitated to marry each other and who live during such marriage, even though it be born
exclusively with each other as husband and wife within the three hundred days after the termination
without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage, of the former marriage.
has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry. Take note sa mga presumption: 300 days after termination of
the first marriage and then 180 days after the subsequent
So, unsa gani ni siya? Familiar? Because you’ve seen that in marriage.
the Family Code. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the
contributions and shares are presumed to be equal. Kato bitaw (ee)That a thing once proved to exist continues as long
mga persons living together without the benefit of marriage. So, as is usual with things of the nature;
dili siya community property, conjugal partnership of gains – co-
partnership lang na siya. Or kana lang bitaw na presumption of This is known as the presumption of continuity of existence.
equal shares lang siya.
(ff)That the law has been obeyed;
(cc)That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a
woman who are not capacitated to marry each other (gg)That a printed or published book, purporting to be
and who have acquire properly through their actual printed or published by public authority, was so printed
joint contribution of money, property or industry, such or published;
contributions and their corresponding shares
including joint deposits of money and evidences of Example: Official Gazette
credit are equal.
(hh)That a printed or published book, purporting
(dd)That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
contracted another marriage within three hundred days country where the book is published, contains correct
after such termination of the former marriage, these reports of such cases;
rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the Example: Philippine Reports; SCRA
contrary:
(ii)That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to
These are presumptions of paternity. convey real property to a particular person has actually
conveyed it to him when such presumption is
300 days? Pila na ka-bulan? 10 months. necessary to perfect the title of such person or his
successor in interest;

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 15 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
(jj)That except for purposes of succession, when two
persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, If one is over under 15 and the other is above 60 – A is 14 and
battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died B is 62, the younger is deemed to have survived.
first, and there are no particular circumstances from
which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined If both be over 15 and under 60 but one is male the other is
from the probabilities resulting from the strength and female – A is male 59 and B is female 21. The male is deemed
the age of the sexes, according to the following rules: to have survived.

These are presumptions of survivorship. If one be under 15 or over 60 and the other between those ages
– A is 61 B is 59, the in betweener is deme dot have survived.
Take note that this would apply, mga rules na akong i-ilustrate
pa-isa-isa, it applies to practically everything except for This is arbitrary. If there is evidence to the contrary then present
purposes of succession. that evidence.

So, if you are not going to apply this for purposes of succession, Under the same paragraph, note that both persons perished.
what is the indication of (jj)? It does not matter kung related. Both of them are actually deceased. The question being
Diba? Dili mag-matter kung related ning two persons who answered is simply “Who died ahead?”.
perished in the same calamity. So ngano nato kinahanglan
mahibal-an kung kinsa nauna namatay? If there is available evidence of survivorship, that one died
ahead of the other, even if purely circumstantial, the paragraph
Kanus-a importante and pre-decease? In succession para does not apply at all.
mahibal-an nato kung kinsa magmana, gikan kang kinsa. So,
unsay purpose aning (jj) if you are not going to apply it for Take note, finally, that for me, it is utterly useless. Let’s say for
purposes of succession? Diba? It’s kinda weird lang but we have example, naay mga tao who perished in the same fire. Different
to go through it. ages, different sexes. Unsa gusto nimo iestablish? Pareha man
sila namatay? For what purpose? What possible evidentiary
1.If both were under the age of fifteen years, the purpose can this presumption apply?
older is deemed to have survived;
(kk)That if there is a doubt, as between two or more
In no. 1, maturity is preferred. persons who are called to succeed each other, as to
which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of
2.If both were above the age sixty, the younger is one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the
deemed to have survived; absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died
at the same time. (5a)
In no. 2, maturity is not preferred.
Kani, precisely for succession ni siya.
3.If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty,
the former is deemed to have survived; That is the general rule - as to which of them died first,
whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
Maturity, in no. 3, is preferred. My mom is 62 years old. prove the same

4.If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the You do not go to the presumptions yet. You have to prove the
sex be different, the male is deemed to have same. Kung kintahay gusto nimo i-allege na nauna namatay si
survived, if the sex be the same, the older; A kaysa B. But in the absence of proof, there is a presumption
of simultaneous death na Dungan sila namatay.
Ipresume nato na ang male ang nagsurvive if over 15 and under
60. Kani, importante ni siya na presumption because enaay pratcial
application. So, in this case, these are legal heirs or intestate
5.If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other heirs of one another. And the doubt is still, which among these
between those ages, the latter is deemed to have two related persons died first. They are legal or intestate heirs.
survived. So, when these conditions are present, consider the following.

If both are under 15 – A is 14 and B is 12. What is the Again, the rule is, if you want to allege that one died ahead of
presumption? The older is deemed to have survived. So the other, you have to prove the allegation. We will not make
namatay una ang mas bata by reason of his immaturity. any presumptions. That is what this provision tells us.

If both are over 60 – A is 68 and B is 61, the younger is deemed 1. So, consider, if there is no doubt or no actual evidence,
to have survived. Mas bata siya, mas dako iyang chances of do not apply paragraph (kk).
survival.

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 16 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
2. Whoever alleges the death of on prior to the other has So, no transmission of rights. So, if the surviving spouse is
the burden of proving this fact. unable to prove that A died ahead of B, the law presumes that
they died at the same time hence, because there is no
Let’s explain this. transmission of rights from one to the other, the surviving spouse
only inherits from B.
A and his son, B, died together at the eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo. A has no other heirs. B, however, is survived Sec. 4 . No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. —
by the spouse. Remember that A is the father, B is the There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child born after
son. Si A, no issue except B. Si B, father and the three hundred days following the dissolution of the
surviving spouse. Duha iyang (inaudible), iyang papa marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges
and iyang surviving spouse. the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his
allegation. (6)
So, if A died ahead of B(nauna namatay ang papa) –
diba si A, at the moment of his death, succession is So we are done already with Rule 131.
open and B becomes an heir. So, B inherits the estate
of his father.

Unya namatay man pud si B at the eruption of Mt.


Pinatubo, kinsa nalang anf iyang heir? Survivin
spouse, who will not only get the estate of her spouse,
B, but also estate of the father, A. So, it is the combined
estate of the father and the son.

But if B died ahead of A(napre-decease ang anak sa


iyang papa) – A inherits from B. Katong papaniya
inherits from the son. But the effect is different. If the
deceased is survived by his parent and spouse, they
share in the inheritance in accordance with Article 893
of the Civil Code. Ultimately, the surviving spouse is
not an heir of the deceased parent. So, the surviving
spouse gets only her share only but does not inherit
form A.

So, kita nimo ang effect kung mauna ang papa kaysa
anak.

So, in order to get everything, the surviving spouse


must prove that A died ahead of B otherwise she will
not inherit from the estate of A but only from half of the
estate of B.

Take note “died at the same time” – this is the


presumption of simultaneous death or presumption of
concurrence of death. The rule provides that, in the
absence of proof, both persons died at the same time.
The rule, however, does not provide the effect of
concurrence of death.

Unsay mahitabo kung dugan mamatay? The law


simply says “they shall be presumed to have died at
the same time.” The Civil Code provides the effect.

Article 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more


persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which
of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to
the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, it
is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall
be no transmission of rights from one to the other. (33)

ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 17 of 17