Evidence 2019: Aberilla, Bethany Joy (0:00-0:30) Ang Quantum of Proof

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
Aberilla, Bethany Joy (0:00-0:30) or 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
of evidence beyond Evidence
the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts
reasonable
in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense
doubt
by 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 The general rule there can be expressed in this Latin maxim:
that sets a definition for a particular term. This means that you EL INCUMBIT PROBATIO QUI DICIT, NON QUI NEGAT—
should all memorize this definition given by the Rules not for The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who
purposes of recitation but for purposes of the bar denies.
examinations. 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
you have to give either the statutory definition or the doctrinal of 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 Discussion: In criminal cases, it is the prosecution who has the
evidence, you fail. To discharge the burden of proof is the end burden of proof. The prosecution will now try to establish the
sought to 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
Simply put, burden of proof or “onus probandi” refers to the criminal cases because burden of proof is actually set by the
obligation of a party to the litigation to persuade the Court that Constitution due to the presumption of innocence that is
he is entitled to relief. afforded to an accused at the beginning of trial.
Why duty? Take note that the right of the accused to be presumed
Because you have to do it. Kung dili ni siya duty, okay ra diay innocent is guaranteed by the Constitution and this
na wala kay ebidensya. The presentation of evidence is a duty fundamental right of the accused is also repeated and
owed by a party not only to the Court but also to himself. embodied in Section 2 of Rule 133 which provides that in a
criminal case, the accused is entitled to be acquitted unless his
Why to the COURT? guilt is demonstrated by proof 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
wala diay kay ebidensiya enjoys 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 EX #1: Article 527 of the Civil Code
lawyers 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
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 1 of 17
EVIDENCE 2019
possessor rests the burden of proof. credible evidence."
Just as settled is the rule that the plaintiff in civil

In this case, the principle applies. cases must rely on strength of his or her own
evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the
EX #2: Article 1272 of the Civil Code. defendant. In the case at bench, this means that
on Pasimio rests the burden of proof and the onus
Art. 1272. Whenever the private document in to produce the required quantum of evidence to
which the debt appears is found in the possession support her cause/s of action.
of the debtor, it shall be presumed that the creditor
delivered it voluntarily, unless the contrary is
proved. (1189) DE LEON v. BPI (November 20, 2013)
In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the

The presumption is, naa na sa imuha ang document kay bayad plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a
na nimo ang utang but it can be proven by contrary evidence. preponderance of evidence.
So who has the burden of proving that with contrary evidence?
It is the creditor. Once the plaintiff has established his case, the
burden of evidence shifts to the defendant, who, in
There is an intimate connection therefore that exists between turn, has the burden to establish his defense.
presumptions and burden of proof. That’s the reason why
burden of proof and presumptions are lumped together under
one Rule (Rule 131) but when there is an applicable So that is the effect. If you are the plaintiff and you are able to
presumption, the burden actually shifts to the party who discharge the burden of proof, the burden of proof now shifts to
denies. Verily, an unrebutted presumption is equivalent to the defendant to present rebuttal evidence.
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 (Discussion on difference between record on appeal and notice
time avoiding liability by invoking lawful self-defense. In such a of appeal)
case, he is now 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 What about constitutionality of laws?
evidence required by law in civil cases is
preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance of MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. DSWD (December
evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the 3, 2013)
aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
considered to be synonymous with the term Whether that line between permissible regulation
"greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of under police power and "taking" under eminent
EVIDENCE 2019
domain has been crossed must, under the specific to support his claim or defense in the meantime. A party who
circumstances of this case, be subject to proof and satisfies the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of
the one assailing the constitutionality of the assumption, passing the burden off to the other party.
regulation carries the heavy burden of proving
that the measure is unreasonable, oppressive or For example, in a criminal case, the prosecution carries the
confiscatory. The time-honored rule is that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
burden of proving the unconstitutionality of a law reasonable doubt. The accused conversely has the benefit of
rests upon the one assailing it and "the burden assumption such that if after the prosecution presents its
becomes heavier when police power is at issue." evidence and the same is not sufficient to convict, the benefit
of assumption (that the accused is presumed innocent)
operates to cause the acquittal of the accused. He does not
TEST FOR DETERMINING WHERE BURDEN OF PROOF
even have to present evidence. The accused wins.
LIES
However, if the evidence of the prosecution is strong, it is
Discussion: The test for determining where the burden of proof
deemed to have established a PRIMA FACIE CASE. Where a
lies is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers
prima facie case is established, the burden of presenting
no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis
evidence is effectively passed off to the defending party. The
for the relief he seeks to obtain. So, general rule, if you’re a
accused therefore must present evidence to establish his
plaintiff and you file a case but do not present any evidence,
innocence. We will talk more about prima facie case when we
you lose. The defendant does not even need to present
go to presumptions because the effect of a presumption is
evidence. It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proof.
already a prima facie case.
But the defendant bears the burden of proof as to all
Another example is in a case for damages due to reckless
affirmative defenses which he sets up in answer to the plantiffs
imprudence or what is known as a quasi-delict where the
claim or cause of action; he being the party who asserts the
maxim RES IPSA LOQUITOR applies. It’s my favorite in all of
truth of the matter he has alleged, the burden is upon him to
law.
establish the facts on which that matter is predicated and if he
fails to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict or decision in It brings to mind my favorite case because of its simplicity —
his favor. Republic vs. Luzon Stevedoring
EX #1: Plaintiff files a suit against a defendant for collection of Bridge. Barge. Bangga. Ang bridge wala galihok. Kinsa’y
sum of money. Plaintiff presents no evidence, he loses. Right? negligent? Ang bridge? The thing speaks for itself. Katong nag
Plain and simple, he loses. operate sa tugboat or barge ang negligent.
EX #2: Plaintiff files a case against a defendant for collection of REPUBLIC v. STEVEDORING (September 29,
sum of money. Defendant sets forth an affirmative defense of 1967)
payment however the defendant does not present evidence.
Who wins here? It is the plaintiff. Why? Because the defendant As to the first question, considering that the
already admitted the existence of the debt. Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary
object and uncontrovertedly provided with
WHERE BURDEN OF PROOF IS FIXED adequate openings for the passage of water craft,
including barges like of appellant's, it is undeniable
Discussion: The burden of proof is fixed by the PLEADINGS. that the unusual event that the barge, exclusively
The claim of the plaintiff, which he must prove, is spelled out in controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge
his complaint. The defendant’s defenses, which he must supports raises a presumption of negligence on the
likewise prove, are to be found in his Answer to the complaint. part of appellant or its employees manning the
barge or the tugs that towed it. For in the ordinary
The burdens of proof of both parties do not shift during the course of events, such a thing does not happen if
course of the trial. For example, the burden of proof to proper care is used. In Anglo American
establish that the defendant owes the plaintiff remains with the Jurisprudence, the inference arises by what is
plaintiff. The burden of proof to establish that the loan has known as the "res ipsa loquitur" rule.
been paid 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
EVIDENCE 2019
reasonable man could find without further evidence that it was position papers, pero daog ang defendants, diba? In labor
so caused. cases specially.
The maxim throws on to the defendant the burden of Q: Is burden of proof the same with burden of evidence?
disproving negligence. This time, it is the defendant who NO. Burden of evidence is the duty resting upon a party, by
carries the burden of proof while the plaintiff has the benefit of means of evidence, to create or meet a prima facie case. The
assumption. Why? 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.
TWO SEPARATE BURDENS IN BURDEN OF PROOF The burden of going forward with the evidence may shift from
one side to the other as the exigencies of the trial requires and
Guerrero, Gyrsyl (30:00 – 1:00)
shifts 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
EVIDENCE 2019
to iyang depensa, na nakabayad na sya sa utang. So there is
shifting.
In criminal cases
There is presumption of innocence that favors the accused, if
the prosecution does not discharged of this burden the
accused should be acquitted. So what usually happens in a
BURDEN OF PROOF DISTINGUISHED FROM BURDEN OF criminal trial, the prosecution presents evidence in chief then,
EVIDENCE accused presents his evidence in chief , the prosecution
presents rebuttal evidence if any and the accuse presents
surrebuttal evidence. Now take note that the prosecution after
discharging its evidence in chief fails to discharge its burden
the accused does not have to present any evidence, he is
BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
entitled to acquittal.
Definition
The duty of a party to The duty of a party to provide Q: What is the remedy of the accused in such case in
present evidence on the evidence at any stage of the order to know if the prosecution had discharged its
facts in issue necessary to trial until he has established a burden? He may file a demurrer to the evidence.
establish his claim or prima facie case, or the like
defense by the amount of duty of the adverse party to SECTION 23, RULE 119. Demurrer to evidence. — After the
evidence required by law meet and overthrow that prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on
(Section 1, Rule 131) prima facie case thus the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative
established. after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2)
Shifting the burden upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without
Does not shift as it remains Shifts to the other party when leave of court.
throughout the entire case one party has discharged his
exactly where the onus probandi or that he has Whenever I am defense counsel for the accused, I always file
pleadings originally paced produced sufficient evidence a demurrer with leave of court, regardless of whether the
it. to be entitled to a ruling in his prosecution established a prima facie case against the
favor. accused.
How to determine
Generally determined by Generally determined by the But this is not applicable anymore. Pero nago ko naga fie?
the pleadings filed by the developments at the trial, or
party; and whoever asserts by the provisions of the If the court believes the grounds I pleaded for the grant of
the affirmative of the issue substantive law or procedural demurrer, the case is dismissed. My client walks away. I win.
has the burden of proof. rules which may relieve the If the court thinks that I am simply bullshitting, who cares?
party from presenting Even if the court denies the demurrer, I still get an advantage
evidence on the facts alleged. because the court has to extensively rule my demurrer. It has
Effects of presumption to refute or explain how the prosecution was able to establish a
It does not shift the burden It creates a prima facie case prima facie case. In other words, in the middle of the trial, the
of proof. However, the one and thereby sustains the said court, in denying my demurrer, will have to summarize for me
who has the burden of burden of evidence on the the evidence of the prosecution so far. In effect, the court will
proof is relieved, for the point which it covers, shifting tell me what evidence it believes so far. With this information, I
time being, from it to the other party. It relieves can prepare the presentation of evidence for the defense
introducing evidence in those favored thereby of the accordingly.
support of his averment burden of proving the fact
because the presumption presumed. Remember that you cannot change it because whatever
stands in the place of evidence that you have marked or identified during the trial you
evidence. are bound by it especially now with the Judicial Affidavit Rule
(JAR). But there is no prohibition daw to file supplemental
(on the shifting of burden) Judicial affidavits, specially so during pre- trial when both
parties reserved the rights to present supplemental evidences.
In civil cases, ang imong defense kay affirmative defense.
The defendant will say “oo nangutang ko pero bayad na”. For example, if the court relied on the positive identification of
the witness, I will then prepare my witnesses, brief them or
So the plaintiff is relieved of the burden of going forward with introduce proof to refute such positive identification. I can still
evidence to prove the existence of the debts and now the win. I may not win outright but I may still win. All you have to do
burden of evidence shifts upon the defendant to prove na tama during the presentation of you evidence is to make sure that
the prima facie case as stated by the court is refuted.
EVIDENCE 2019
Take note under 16, there is a hearing on the motion. At the
Q: What happens if the accused pleads a justifying hearing on the motion, the party shall submit their arguments.
circumstance? Its self-defense, so accordingly the burden
proof shifts to the accused who must then prove the justifying Section 2, RULE 16 . Hearing of motion. — At the hearing of
circumstance, what’s the quantum of proof required? Clear and the motion, the parties shall submit their arguments on the
convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self- defense. questions of law and their evidence on the questions of fact
involved except those not available at that time. Should the
In a way it is confession and avoidance. Accordingly, the case go to trial, the evidence presented during the hearing
burden of proof or to be more technical, the burden of going shall automatically be part of the evidence of the party
forward with the evidence, shifts to the accused who must then presenting the same. (n)
prove the justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and
convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense or in so kinsay una mu submit ug evidence? Ang defendant.
defense of a 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,
convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the weakness of the a preliminary hearing will be had thereon as if a Motion to
prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, “for even Dismiss had been filed. It will lose the plaintiff’s right to amend
if the evidence of the prosecution were weak, it could not be his 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 defenses. — If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the
accused committed the killing but tries to avoid criminal liability grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded
by alleging that the killing is justified. It is an affirmative as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion
defense (confession and avoidance) in civil case. Because he of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a
admits to the killing, the prosecution does not have to present motion to dismiss had been filed. (5a) The dismissal of the
evidence. The burden is effectively shifted to the accused, complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the
leading to a 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
2. The prosecution then presents evidence in chief to refute the payment, for example. Because that is already __ the
claim (negating self- defense) existence of the debt. Now during trial proper, if the affirmative
3. The accused presents rebuttal evidence defenses was not believed by the court, can he change his
4. The accused presents surrebuttal evidence theory? Can he now say that he knows no debt? YES. But he
will look silly. For as long as it is stated in his pleading. He is
So now, there is a change in the order of trial. Because the precisely allowed to do so. That is the beauty of Civil
accused admitted the killing, the burden of proving that it was Procedure.
done in lawful self-defense is now upon him. Therefore the
burden of evidence, to initially go forward with the evidence is Instance when the burden of proof is fixed upon the
upon the accused. accused by law?
In civil case, In speedy disposition of cases RA 8493, Section 13. Remedy

Come to think of it, the same thing happens in self-defense. Where Accused is Not Brought to Trial Within the Time
For example a defendant in a collection case files a Motion to Limit. - If an accused is not brought to trial within the time limit
Dismiss based on an alternative defense. There will be a required by Section 7 of this Act as extended by Section 9, the
hearing. information shall be dismissed on motion of the accused. The
accused shall have the burden of proof of supporting such
So what will happen? There will be a hearing on the motion to motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going
dismiss where the defendant will present evidence to prove the forward with the evidence in connection with the exclusion of
ground relied upon for dismissal. This happens prior to trial time under Section 10 of this Act.
proper.
PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVE AVERMENTS
So gi- admit nako ang utang does the plaintiff needs to present
evidence to prove the existence of the debt? No
EVIDENCE 2019
Negative allegations need not be proved whether in civil or what happens to the law? is it declared unconstitutional? Of
criminal cases. It is an expression of the general rule – “he who course not, it is still the status quo. Same thing in a boxing
affirms must prove, not he who negates” match— if it’s even, it’s still the champion. Same thing with
litigation.
GR: A negative allegation need not be proved.
EX: Negative allegations must be proved. What’s the status quo? The defendant has no liability. the
evidence is in equipoise. Who has the burden of proving?
1. When such negative allegations are essential parts of a Plaintiff—plaintiff loses. Why? Because it is the plaintiff who
cause of action or defense in a civil case or tries to break the status quo.
2. When negative allegations are essential ingredients of an
offense in a criminal case or the defenses thereto.
Fabe, Isabelle (1:00-1:31) BASIS
What are examples of negative allegations that are Article III of 1987 Constitution. Section 1. No person shall be
ingredients of the offense? deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
Example of illegal possession of firearms, you don’t have a laws.
license that’s negative. But you need to prove it. Why do you
need to prove it? Because it is an element of the offense. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there
is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party
What’s the example of an ingredient of an offense that is
having the burden of proof fails upon that issue. Therefore, as
negative? Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
neither party was able to make out a case, neither side could
person defending himself.
establish its cause of action and prevail with the evidence it
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION had. They are thus no better off than before they proceeded to
litigate, and, as a consequence thereof, the courts can only
In civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an essential leave them as they are.
part of the cause of action or defense, it doesn’t have to be
proved, if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of Again, what do we have to remember? Status quo – because
a document. It should be properly plead in the custody of the evidence is equal. In short, where evidence is in equipoise the
person. court should rule in favor of the defending party because the
claimant was unable to discharge the burden or defeat the
Just Take note of that in the case of Regalado, it’s in my book. presumption, the parties would stand as if the case was never
there.
DOCTRINE OF EQUIPOISE OR DOCTRINE OF
EQUIPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. In labor cases, if doubt exists between the evidence presented
by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must
The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the be tilted in favor of the latter. Again, the quantum of proof is not
parties are evenly balanced, where there is doubt on either equal to the parties here.
sides of the preponderates.
In criminal cases, their required quantum of proof is not equal.
In this case, the decision should be against the party who has The prosecution— proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
the burden of proof, hence where the burden of proof is on the accused—only reasonable doubt.
plaintiff and the evidence does not suggest the scale of justice
should weigh on his favor, the court should render a verdict in In labor cases how does an employee prove illegal dismissal?
favor of the defendant. What’s the quantum of proof required?
How do we simplify this? Let’s say there’s this boxing match – substantial evidence or such amount of evidence as is
sufficient to support a conclusion as a reasonable mind might
Champion vs. Challenger, the score of the judges are the accept to support the conclusion. (ANG TIBAY vs. CIR). The
same— test there is reasonableness.
Meaning even based on the score cards. Who is the If you are the employer, you want to refute the claim of illegal
champion? Still the champion. Same thing with happened to dismissal, what’s your quantum of proof if you recall your labor
the case of Cruz vs. DENR Secretary? Constitutionality of the law? is it substantial evidence? No. the quantum of proof is
Indigenous People’s Rights Act. The petitioners there were different. It’s clear and convincing evidence.
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, challenging the IPRA. 5
Justices voting in favor – and 5 justices still voting in favor,
EVIDENCE 2019
If the standard of the employee is simply reasonableness of law expressly directs to be made from particular facts. A
evidence, what about the employer? It’s persuasiveness presumption of law is an assumption which the law
weight of evidence— clear and convincing. That quantum of requires to be made from the set of facts. It must be made
proof is heavier compared to substantial evidence. whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis of the
inference. Such type of presumption is reduced to fixed
BAR QUESTION 1995 rules and form part of the system of rules.
Explain the equipoise doctrine and cite its constitutional 2. PRESUMPTION OF FACT— a deduction which reason
basis. draws from facts proved without an express direction from
the law to that event. A presumption is one of fact when
assumption is made from the facts without any direction or
positive requirements of the law as such is totally
Take note this is an unfair question. It is a remedial question discretionary on the court as derived from circumstances
that calls for answer in constitutional law/political law. let’s go of the case through common experience of mind. An
to 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.
3. facts that are legally presumed.
But there is a presumption of fact that can be based on
human experience. I punched him because maybe I don’t
PRESUMPTION like him 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 one of substantive law—it has the effect of a substantive law.
the burden of offering evidence. It is not evidence in itself but it you are not allowed to refute
is an 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
Example: X is creditor of C for 1M payable in 12 equal monthly presumption. When evidence rebuts the presumption is
installments, if evidence is introduced that installment payment introduced, the force 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
previous installments have been paid. What’s the fact you’re evidence of receipt of payment of a later installment gives rise
presenting? The fact that you paid on December. What’s the to the presumption that the previous installments have been
presumption established? Previous installments have been paid but evidence is shown that prior installments remain
paid, this is because of a law that receipt of a later installment unpaid, the 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
EVIDENCE 2019
presumption. That’s their relationship. the time of the commencement of the relation of land-lord and
tenant between them.
Establishing a prima facie case meaning establishing or
making a case –example, a trial in criminal law, the “I will rent your boarding house” and then you are able to rent,
prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence what is that? You are actually admitting that the person you
on each element of the crime charged against the accused. If approached is the owner of the boarding house. Now at the
the burden is discharged, a prima facie case is established. time of payment, “who are you, are you the owner?”.
In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim What do you present? Evidence of establishment of tenant-
was in fact dead, that the defendant’s act caused death and land lord relationship. What’s the effect? What’s the conclusive
evidence that the defendant acted with criminal intent. If no presumption that takes place? The conclusive presumption
party produces new evidence, the case stands or falls simply that is now applicable is that, the title of your land lord is
by the prima facie evidence. conclusive upon you. You cannot deny that. You cannot refute
that.
To conclude, when a prima facie case is established it means
that the party with the initial burden of proof has discharged it. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION—an inference of the law
It means that the burden of evidence has now shifted to the which it makes so preemptory that it will not allow it to be
other party who must present evidence to meet the prima facie overturned by contrary proof however strong.
case against him. If he presents no evidence, he loses the
case. It almost has the same effect with presumption, but it has It is an artificially compelling force which requires a trier of facts
a correlation. to find such facts conclusively presumed which renders
evidence to the contrary inadmissible. It is sometimes referred
A presumption in a way establishes a prima facie case. Why? to as irrebutable presumption.
They have the same definition. If unrebutted, is sufficient to
support the conclusion. If there’s a disputable presumption – Conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court are based
res ipsa loquitor, that’s supposed to be disputable but if the on the Doctrine of Estoppel. Under this doctrine, the person
defendant does not present any evidence that he was not making the representation cannot claim benefit from the wrong
negligent a prima facie case is deemed established, plaintiff he himself committed.
wins.
Under section 21, as an example, the Corporation Code—
If it’s a conclusive presumption you have to present evidence. persons who assume to be a corporation without legal
authority to act as such can be considered a corporation by
Section 2. Conclusive Presumptions. – The following are estoppel and shall be liable as general partners.
instances of conclusive presumptions:
Section 21. Corporation by estoppel. — All persons who
Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all
thing is true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result
litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be thereof; Provided, however, that when any such ostensible
permitted to falsify it. corporation is sued on any transaction entered into by it as a
corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not
This the DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. I said be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate
something to you and because I said something to you, you personality.
acted on it (maybe you parted with money, you bought some
thing on the promise it is okay). One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation
as such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that
What do you prove? What is that evidence you are still there was in fact no corporation.
required to present? The declaration or act or omission. If the
declaration or act or omission is established.
What happens? The law will now presume based on the You cannot anymore refute that you were acting as a
doctrine of promissory estoppel. corporation. You really have liability.
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his land lord at Take note as well there are other conclusive presumptions.
EVIDENCE 2019
JARCO MARKETING vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Lara, Marion ( 1:31-2:00)
There’s a conclusive presumption that a person under 9 years
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW
of age, cannot act with discernment – there’s no discernment
at all. No matter how you try to prove it.
Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when presumed.
- Every contract on a negotiable instrument is
Therefore, the rule, a child under 9 years of age is also incomplete and revocable until delivery of the
conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence. instrument for the purpose of giving effect
thereto. As between immediate parties and as
You remember my example with my son— giving 50 pesos regards a remote party other than a holder in due
Pepito. And he was 7 years old.  course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must
be made either by or under the authority of the
party making, drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as
Take note of the Pangilinan Law that changed the criminal
the case may be; and, in such case, the delivery
responsibility of children. Does it still apply? under the RPC may be shown to have been conditional, or for a
which the Pangilinan law amends, below 9, with or without special purpose only, and not for the purpose
discernment, exempt from criminal liability. 9-15, would be of transferring the property in the instrument.
amenable to proof of discernment so it won’t be exempt from But where the instrument is in the hands of a
liability. holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by
all parties prior to him so as to make them liable
PEOPLE vs GAA to him is conclusively presumed. And where the
instrument is no longer in the possession of a
party whose signature appears thereon, a valid
Proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary as they
and intentional delivery by him is presumed until
are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the the contrary is proved.
absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when
the victim is below the age of 12 in the crime of statutory Conclusive presumption gihapon. Akong pangutana
rape. simple lang: kung conclusive ang presumption, can you
rebut it? You cannot, diba? It is not susceptible of proof
Section 48 of CA 141 in relation to Section 14 (1) of PD1529 no matter how strong it is.
Sir shares his debate with his wife, Maam YY, the former
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
being a procedural law professor (Evidence) and the latter
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and being a substantive law professor (Succession):
notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim When the law does not say that it is conclusively
of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately presumed, it is susceptible to contrary proof.
preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title Kung dili ginaingon sa balaod na conclusive siya,
except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall pwede gyud na nimo irefute. Maam YY tells him
be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions that the law on succession is based on conclusive
essential to Government grant and shall be entitled to a presumption. Does the law tell that it is
certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. conclusive 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?
What’s this PD1529? PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE Unya ang mga children kay walay buot. You
cannot. Why? Because the law presumes that the
(b) that an unlawful act was done with unlawful intent children are always preferred over the
grandparents. You cannot present evidence. Art
992 of the New Civil Code pa lang daan. What is
INTENT TO KILL
the basis of that? It is the presumed animosity
between the legitimate and illegitimate. Can you
BITOL vs. PEOPLE prove that there is no animosity?
If it is conclusively presumed na naay presumed
If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor’s intent animosity, then you cannot prove otherwise. But
to kill is conclusively presumed because otherwise, if the intention to if it is only a disputable presumption, then you
wound, why would the victim die? So the intent to kill is conclusively can present contrary proof. Mao na among lalis.
presumed in that situation Kay pag wala giingon sa law na conclusive,
EVIDENCE 2019
disputable gyud na siya kay limited ang Art. 1436. A lessee or a bailee is estopped from
conclusive presumption. Pero ang giingon ni asserting title to the thing leased or received, as
Maam YY kay the entire law on succession is against the lessor or bailor.
based in conclusive presumption, or the Law on
Intestacy, at least, are all based on conclusive DATALIFT MOVERS VS BELGRAVIA REALTY
presumptions. GR No. 144268, August 30, 2006
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are Conclusive presumptions have been defined as "inferences
instances of conclusive presumptions: which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them
to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong." As
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or long as the lessor-lessee relationship between the petitioners
omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to and Belgravia exists as in this case, the former, as lessees,
believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot by any proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or presumption that Belgravia has valid title to or better right of
omission, be permitted to falsify it: possession to the subject leased premises than they have.
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord That is supposed to be an absolute rule, but through
at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and jurisprudence, nidaghan ang exceptions. Supposed to be kung
tenant 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 The conclusive presumption set forth in Rule 131, Section 2(b)
fact it was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it would be of the Rules of Court applies only when the landlord and tenant
virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in relationship has been sufficiently established. In the case at
other injustice. In this respect, the reliance by the promisee is bar, 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
the idea has been expressed that such action or forbearance between the parties. Moreover, respondents themselves have
would reasonably have been expected by the promissor. not asserted ownership over the leased premises, the truth of
the matter being that respondents were never the registered
In order to make out a claim of promissory estoppel, a party owners 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 sufficiently established or where the very existence of the
forebearance, 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 applicable or the very existence of the relationship is the issue
apply, you still have to present evidence. Kaning evidence on in the case, the conclusive presumption does not apply.
elements 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 Sa sugod siya gyud ang tag-iya sa yuta pero in the middle of
tenant between them. the lease, nagchange ang ownership through sale, assign or
giquestion iyang title, etc. that can be rebutted by contrary
Related to the second kind of conclusive presumption is Article proof. Example is the case of SANTOS VS NATIONAL
1436 on Commodatum and Lease: STATISTICS OFFICE, April 6, 2011.
EVIDENCE 2019
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for four
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent; (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his circumstances and whose existence has not been known for
voluntary act; four years;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns; (4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent
produced; marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter; spouse is already death. In case of disappearance, where
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove
latter; provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid; the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must
receipt for the later one is produced; institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance
whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or of the absent 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
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
appointed 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 capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with
laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage
that 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
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and
sufficient consideration; evidences of credit 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
instrument is dated; contracted another marriage within three hundred days after
(u) That a writing is truly dated; such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the govern in 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
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be
whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead born within the three hundred days after the termination of the
for all purposes, except for those of succession. former 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
five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may former marriage.
be 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;
EVIDENCE 2019
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed These are related to presumptions. Like, kaning fraud. Diba
or published by public authority, was so printed or published; fraud cannot be presumed and fraud must be proven by clear
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain and convincing evidence.
reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the
book is published, contains correct reports of such cases; (q)That the ordinary course of business has been
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey followed;
real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to
him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of Again, this is a presumption in relation to regularity.
such person or his successor in interest;
And this is also one of the reasons why we have kana bitaw
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons exception to the hearsay rule – entries in the course of
perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or business. And also as an exception to the best evidence rule –
conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are regular course of business lang gihapon.
no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the
survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from So, the presumption is same as to regularity. It covers both
the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the public and private transactions.
following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is Persons engaged in a trade or business are presumed to be
deemed to have survived; acquainted with the general customs, usages, and other facts
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to necessarily incident to the proper conduct of business.
have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former (r)That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
is deemed to have survived; (s)That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be a sufficient consideration;
different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be
the same, the older; Just take note of letter (r) and letter (s). Two presumptions.
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between These two presumptions are related to Article 1344.
those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
Article 1354. Although the cause is not stated in
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons the contract, it is presumed that it exists and is
who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died lawful, unless the debtor proves the contrary.
first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall (1277)
prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be
considered to have died at the same time. (5a) Making it what type of presumption? Merely disputable.
This is the longest provision. Hastang daghana. (t)That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was
made before the instrument was overdue and at the place
NOTE: Please refer to Evidence Explained, pages 555-579 where the instrument is dated;
since the discussion is the same. No additional
substantial information. A holder of a negotiable instrument is always presumed to be a
holder in due course.
Only up to letter (p) for this assignment (pls not include
notes in final TSN) (u)That a writing is truly dated;
Martinez, Mizzy (2:00 – 2:31:12) (v)That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in
the regular course of the mail;
(p)That private transactions have been fair and regular; Now take note that when a mailed letter is sent by registered
mail, there exists a presumption under Rule 131 that it was
This is the presumption of regularity in private transactions. received in the regular course of mail.
This is a presumption that all men act fairly, honestly, in good
faith, and that the individual intends to do right rather than “The facts to be proved in order to raise this presumption are:
wrong and intends to do only what he has the right to do under a. That the letter was properly addressed with postage
the circumstances. prepaid, and
b. That it was mailed.”
Good faith is always presumed, and it is the burden of the
party claiming otherwise to adduce clear and convincing While a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in
evidence to the contrary. the ordinary course of mail, it is still merely a disputable
EVIDENCE 2019
presumption. Especially so because of how slow our postal
service actually is. So, summarize nalang nato kay taas kaayo ni siya na
presumption.
Take note that in Civil Procedure Rule 13, Section 3, there is
also this rule that the date of mailing shall be considered the The general rule is 7 years. The absentee is presumed dead
date of filing if it is by registered mail. Pag regular mail or for all purposes after an absence of 7 years. 7 years gyud siya.
private courier service, ang rule is the date of receipt is the
date of filing. But exceptions dapat atong timan-an.
(w)That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown First, 10 years if the purpose is to open his succession.
whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered Meaning, mag-extra judicial partition na ta sa estate kung
dead for all purposes, except for those of succession. walay will or magprobate na ta sa will, isettle na ang iyahang
estate. Mubayad na ta ug estate tax. 10 years.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the
purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of Second, if the absentee after the age of 75 years, instead of 7
ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, 5 years will be sufficient in order that his succession
years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order may be opened.
that his succession may be opened.
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
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea death:
voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not 1. On board a ship
been heard of for four years since the loss of the 2. Hostilities at war
vessel or aircraft; 3. Force majeure
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part 4. Flood, earthquake
in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four
years; Fourth, where there is a danger of death, an absence of only 2
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
other circumstances and whose existence has not subsequent marriage. 2 years lang.
been known for four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four Now take note that there is a provision under the Family Code,
consecutive years, the spouse present may Article 41:
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person
already death. In case of disappearance, where during subsistence of a previous marriage shall
there is a danger of death the circumstances be null and void, unless before the celebration of
hereinabove provided, an absence of only two the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had
years shall be sufficient for the purpose of been absent for four consecutive years and the
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in spouse present has a well-founded belief that the
any case, before marrying again, the spouse absent spouse was already dead. In case of
present must institute a summary proceedings as disappearance where there is danger of death
provided in the Family Code and in the rules for under the circumstances set forth in the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
the absent spouse.
In case of disappearance where there is danger of death, an
Kani. Presumption na tag-as unya mga importante pa gyud na absence of only 2 years shall be sufficient. But generally, 4
presumption. Di na nako basahon. Akong buhaton, isummarize years.
nalang nako ang rules in relation to the so-called presumptive
death. Take note of the term “well-founded belief that the absent
spouse was already dead.”
So, what is presumptive death? It is death inferred from proof
of a person’s long unexplained absence. Such a presumption So, duha ka period under Article 41 of the Family Code.
arises by prolonged absence of a person for a prescribed
number of years during which no one has seen or heard from For the purpose of contracting the subsequent
the person and there is no reason for the person’s marriage under the preceding paragraph the
disappearance that would be incompatible with the finding that spouse present must institute a summary
the individual is dead. proceeding as provided in this Code for the
EVIDENCE 2019
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, (cc)That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of woman who are not capacitated to marry each other
the absent spouse. (83a) and who have acquire properly through their actual
joint contribution of money, property or industry, such
So, imagine the situation. I don’t remember the legal contributions and their corresponding shares
impetus. But the situation is there is this woman who was including joint deposits of money and evidences of
married and then absent, presumed lost at sea during a credit are equal.
sea voyage. Pakasal siya usab after a period of 2 years.
And then he re-apeared. Duha iyang bana. (dd)That if the marriage is terminated and the mother
contracted another marriage within three hundred
CASE: REPUBLIC vs SARENOGON(Feb. 10, 2016) days after such termination of the former marriage,
these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the
The “well-founded belief” requisite under Article 41 of the contrary:
Family Code is complied with only upon a showing that
sincere honest-to-goodness efforts have indeed been These are presumptions of paternity.
made to ascertain whether the absent spouse is still alive
or is already dead. 300 days? Pila na ka-bulan? 10 months.
It is not enough that nagtuo lang ka na patay na kay absent Is it possible for a fetus to have an intrauterine life above 9
siya for the longest time. Dapat imo gyud gipangita and gi- months? Yes. The average worldwide is actually 274 days.
ascertain.
Possible naman siya na mmu-abot 300days and many a
(x)That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing journal will tell you na the longest intrauterine life sa fetus is
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact; 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 (1)A child born before one hundred eighty days
course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life; after the solemnization of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived
So, meaning kung malinog then guba ang balay, ana ra na. during such marriage, even though it be born
within the three hundred days after the
(z)That persons acting as copartners have entered into a termination of the former marriage.
contract of copartneship;
(aa)That a man and woman deporting themselves as Take note that there is a similar provision under Article 168 of
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract the Family Code which is a reproduction of what the Civil Code
of marriage; provides. Take note that there is no presumption of legitimacy
or illegitimacy when a child is born after 300 days following the
Recall the exception to the hearsay rule – common reputation dissolution of marriage or the separation of the spouses.
in relation to marriage. So what is the presumption that arises if Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy must prove
you see them together as husband and wife purporting 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 marriage is considered to have been conceived
who 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
without the benefit of marriage or under void termination of the former marriage.
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
mga persons living together without the benefit of marriage. long as is usual with things of the nature;
So, dili siya community property, conjugal partnership of gains
– co-partnership lang na siya. Or kana lang bitaw na This is known as the presumption of continuity of existence.
presumption of equal shares lang siya.
(ff)That the law has been obeyed;
EVIDENCE 2019
Maturity, in no. 3, is preferred. My mom is 62 years old.
(gg)That a printed or published book, purporting to be
printed or published by public authority, was so 4.If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the
printed or published; sex be different, the male is deemed to have
survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
Example: Official Gazette
Ipresume nato na ang male ang nagsurvive if over 15 and
(hh)That a printed or published book, purporting under 60.
contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
country where the book is published, contains correct 5.If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the
reports of such cases; other between those ages, the latter is deemed to
Example: Philippine Reports; SCRA have survived.
(ii)That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to If both are under 15 – A is 14 and B is 12. What is the
convey real property to a particular person has presumption? The older is deemed to have survived. So
actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is namatay una ang mas bata by reason of his immaturity.
necessary to perfect the title of such person or his
successor in interest; If both are over 60 – A is 68 and B is 61, the younger is
deemed to have survived. Mas bata siya, mas dako iyang
(jj)That except for purposes of succession, when two chances of survival.
persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck,
battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died If one is over under 15 and the other is above 60 – A is 14 and
first, and there are no particular circumstances from B is 62, the younger is deemed to have survived.
which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
determined from the probabilities resulting from the If both be over 15 and under 60 but one is male the other is
strength and the age of the sexes, according to the female – A is male 59 and B is female 21. The male is deemed
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
Take note that this would apply, mga rules na akong i-ilustrate survived.
pa-isa-isa, it applies to practically everything except for
purposes of succession. This is arbitrary. If there is evidence to the contrary then
present that evidence.
So, if you are not going to apply this for purposes of
succession, what is the indication of (jj)? It does not matter Under the same paragraph, note that both persons perished.
kung related. Diba? Dili mag-matter kung related ning two Both of them are actually deceased. The question being
persons who perished in the same calamity. So ngano nato answered is simply “Who died ahead?”.
kinahanglan mahibal-an kung kinsa nauna namatay?
If there is available evidence of survivorship, that one died
Kanus-a importante and pre-decease? In succession para ahead of the other, even if purely circumstantial, the paragraph
mahibal-an nato kung kinsa magmana, gikan kang kinsa. So, does not apply at all.
unsay purpose aning (jj) if you are not going to apply it for
purposes of succession? Diba? It’s kinda weird lang but we Take note, finally, that for me, it is utterly useless. Let’s say for
have to go through it. example, naay mga tao who perished in the same fire.
Different ages, different sexes. Unsa gusto nimo iestablish?
1.If both were under the age of fifteen years, the Pareha man sila namatay? For what purpose? What possible
older is deemed to have survived; evidentiary purpose can this presumption apply?
In no. 1, maturity is preferred. (kk)That if there is a doubt, as between two or more

persons who are called to succeed each other, as to
2.If both were above the age sixty, the younger is which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of
deemed to have survived; one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the
absence of proof, they shall be considered to have
In no. 2, maturity is not preferred. died at the same time. (5a)
3.If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, Kani, precisely for succession ni siya.
the former is deemed to have survived;
EVIDENCE 2019
That is the general rule - as to which of them died first, So, in order to get everything, the surviving spouse
whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall must prove that A died ahead of B otherwise she will
prove the same not inherit from the estate of A but only from half of
the estate of B.
You do not go to the presumptions yet. You have to prove the
same. Kung kintahay gusto nimo i-allege na nauna namatay si Take note “died at the same time” – this is the
A kaysa B. But in the absence of proof, there is a presumption presumption of simultaneous death or presumption of
of simultaneous death na Dungan sila namatay. concurrence of death. The rule provides that, in the
absence of proof, both persons died at the same time.
Kani, importante ni siya na presumption because enaay The rule, however, does not provide the effect of
pratcial application. So, in this case, these are legal heirs or concurrence of death.
intestate heirs of one another. And the doubt is still, which
among these two related persons died first. They are legal or Unsay mahitabo kung dugan mamatay? The law
intestate heirs. So, when these conditions are present, simply says “they shall be presumed to have died at
consider the following. the same time.” The Civil Code provides the effect.
Again, the rule is, if you want to allege that one died ahead of Article 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more
the other, you have to prove the allegation. We will not make persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which
any presumptions. That is what this provision tells us. of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior
to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof,
1. So, consider, if there is no doubt or no actual it is presumed that they died at the same time and there
evidence, do not apply paragraph (kk). shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other.
2. Whoever alleges the death of on prior to the other has (33)
the burden of proving this fact.
So, no transmission of rights. So, if the surviving spouse is
Let’s explain this. unable to prove that A died ahead of B, the law presumes that
they died at the same time hence, because there is no
A and his son, B, died together at the eruption of Mt. transmission of rights from one to the other, the surviving
Pinatubo. A has no other heirs. B, however, is spouse only inherits from B.
survived by the spouse. Remember that A is the
father, B is the son. Si A, no issue except B. Si B, Sec. 4 . No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. —
father and the surviving spouse. Duha iyang There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child born after
(inaudible), iyang papa and iyang surviving spouse. three hundred days following the dissolution of the
marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever
So, if A died ahead of B(nauna namatay ang papa) – alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must
diba si A, at the moment of his death, succession is prove his allegation. (6)
open and B becomes an heir. So, B inherits the estate
of his father. So we are done already with Rule 131.
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.

Evidence 2019: Aberilla, Bethany Joy (0:00-0:30) Ang Quantum of Proof

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence 2019: Aberilla, Bethany Joy (0:00-0:30) Ang Quantum of Proof

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence 2019: Aberilla, Bethany Joy (0:00-0:30) Ang Quantum of Proof

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE 2019

From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

Just as settled is the rule that the plaintiff in civil

In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the

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

COMPONENT ONERA IN ONUS PROBANDI or SEPARATE

1. BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD – that of producing

Illustration of going forward with the evidence: For example,

Ingana gyud na diba, remember, plaintiff presents evidence in

2. BURDEN OF PERSUASION – burden of persuading

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

In civil case, In speedy disposition of cases RA 8493, Section 13. Remedy

Fabe, Isabelle (1:00-1:31) BASIS

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

JARCO MARKETING vs. COURT OF APPEALS

So, whatever that means. So what are these presumptions?

In no. 1, maturity is preferred. (kk)That if there is a doubt, as between two or more

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

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

You might also like