EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
Rule 131
Aberilla, Bethany Joy (0:00-0:30)
This is Rule 131, burden of proof and presumptions. Let’s start
off with Section 1.
Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the
duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by
the amount of evidence required by law. (1a, 2a)
Discussion: Take note that Rule 131 Section 1 is a provision that
sets a definition for a particular term. This means that you should
all memorize this definition given by the Rules not for purposes
of recitation but for purposes of the bar examinations.
Remember that when the law defines something, the law
expects that you should know the definition.
In the bar examinations, you’ll be confronted with definition
question. When there are such questions, the examiner would
expect nothing less than the definition that the law provides. So
you have to give either the statutory definition or the doctrinal
definition (the definition the Supreme Court provides in
Jurisprudence for a particular term)
What is this burden of proof?
This is the reason why we present evidence. Burden of proof
dictates that if you present your case without sufficient evidence,
you fail. To discharge the burden of proof is the end sought to
be achieved by the presentation of evidence.
Simply put, burden of proof or “onus probandi” refers to the
obligation of a party to the litigation to persuade the Court that
he is entitled to relief.
Why duty?
Because you have to do it. Kung dili ni siya duty, okay ra diay
na wala kay ebidensya. The presentation of evidence is a duty
owed by a party not only to the Court but also to himself.
Why to the COURT?
Because filing a case without presenting evidence makes it
spurious, vexatious, and malicious. Nag file file lang ka pero
wala diay kay ebidensiya
How about the party himself?
Because if he presents no evidence, he loses his case.
This is something we should avoid as lawyers because anyway
we’re all going to be Ateneo lawyers (Amen) and Ateneo lawyers
do not take losing easily.
What is this amount of evidence required by law?
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 1 of 17
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
issue. Just to give you an overview, remember na lahi lahi ang
quantum of proof.
Civil Criminal Admin
Preponderance Proof Substantial
of evidence beyond Evidence
reasonable
doubt
If burden of proof is a duty, who bears the burden?
The general rule there can be expressed in this Latin maxim:
EL INCUMBIT PROBATIO QUI DICIT, NON QUI NEGAT— The
burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
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.
You’re the one who affirms a fact. What fact is that? That the
defendant was negligent and therefore you suffered damage
because of that. So, you bear the burden of proof in that type of
case.
How about in criminal cases? Who do you think bears the
burden of proof?
CRIMINAL CASES
Discussion: In criminal cases, it is the prosecution who has the
burden of proof. The prosecution will now try to establish the
guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt and there
are constitutional underpinnings when it comes to criminal cases
because burden of proof is actually set by the Constitution due
to the presumption of innocence that is afforded to an accused
at the beginning of trial.
Take note that the right of the accused to be presumed innocent
is guaranteed by the Constitution and this fundamental right of
the accused is also repeated and embodied in Section 2 of Rule
133 which provides that in a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to be acquitted unless his guilt is demonstrated by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
PRINCIPLE: Whenever a presumption applies in favor of a
party, the burden of proof rests in the other. The accused enjoys
the presumption of innocence and that is why the prosecution
bears the burden of proof.
Is that really the case? If a party is favored by a
presumption, would the other party necessarily bear the
burden of proof?
EX #1: Article 527 of the Civil Code
Art. 527. Good faith is always presumed, and
upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a
possessor rests the burden of proof.
 EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
In this case, the principle applies.
EX #2: Article 1272 of the Civil Code.
Art. 1272. Whenever the private document in which
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
proved. (1189)
The presumption is, naa na sa imuha ang document kay bayad
na nimo ang utang but it can be proven by contrary evidence.
So who has the burden of proving that with contrary evidence?
It is the creditor.
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
one Rule (Rule 131) but when there is an applicable
presumption, the burden actually shifts to the party who denies.
Verily, an unrebutted presumption is equivalent to proof already.
Let’s go back to criminal cases. As a rule, the obligation to
convince the trier of facts to show the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, throughout the trial, is upon the
prosecution. However, when the accused invokes self-defense,
the burden of proof rests upon the defense to prove that the
killing was justified.
Why is this so?
What are you saying when you plead self-defense. Mura na
siya’g sa civil cases na confession and avoidance. While the
accused in criminal cases enjoys the presumption of innocence,
he is actually confessing his guilt but at the same time avoiding
liability by invoking lawful self-defense. In such a case, he is now
robbed of his presumption of innocence.
CIVIL CASES
Discussion: Whoever makes an affirmative allegation has the
burden of proof. A party who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it.
PNB v. PASIMIO (September 2, 2015)
It is settled that the burden of proof lies with the party
who asserts a right and the quantum of evidence
required by law in civil cases is preponderance of
evidence. "Preponderance of evidence" is the
weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence
on either side and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term "greater weight of
evidence" or "greater weight of credible evidence."
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 2 of 17
Just as settled is the rule that the plaintiff in civil
cases must rely on strength of his or her own
evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the
defendant. In the case at bench, this means that on
Pasimio rests the burden of proof and the onus to
produce the required quantum of evidence to
support her cause/s of action.
DE LEON v. BPI (November 20, 2013)
In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence.
Once the plaintiff has established his case, the
burden of evidence shifts to the defendant, who, in
turn, has the burden to establish his defense.
So that is the effect. If you are the plaintiff and you are able to
discharge the burden of proof, the burden of proof now shifts to
the defendant to present rebuttal evidence.
Take note that I’m using two terms here. There’s BURDEN OF
PROOF upon the plaintiff and now shifting of BURDEN OF
EVIDENCE upon the defendant. Pareha lang ba na? Burden of
Proof and Burden of Evidence? We’ll look at that later on.
How about in a case that is not an ordinary civil case or a
criminal case? What about in a special civil action?
For example, in an eminent domain case, the local government
seeks to expropriate private property has the burden of proving
to show the existence of compliance with the elements for the
valid exercise of the right of eminent domain.
(Discussion on difference between record on appeal and notice
of appeal)
How about in a suit for the recovery of sum of money?
The plaintiff creditor has the burden of proof to show that the
defendant had not paid her the amount of the contracted loan.
Conversely, if the defendant admits the debt but defends by
alleging that it has already been paid, waived or otherwise
extinguished, he has the burden to prove the extinguishment of
the alleged obligation. One who pleads payment has the burden
of proving it.
What about constitutionality of laws?
MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. DSWD (December
3, 2013)
Whether that line between permissible regulation
under police power and "taking" under eminent
domain has been crossed must, under the specific
circumstances of this case, be subject to proof and
 EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
the one assailing the constitutionality of the
regulation carries the heavy burden of proving
that the measure is unreasonable, oppressive or
confiscatory. The time-honored rule is that the
burden of proving the unconstitutionality of a law
rests upon the one assailing it and "the burden
becomes heavier when police power is at issue."
TEST FOR DETERMINING WHERE BURDEN OF PROOF
LIES
Discussion: The test for determining where the burden of proof
lies is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers
no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis
for the relief he seeks to obtain. So, general rule, if you’re a
plaintiff and you file a case but do not present any evidence, you
lose. The defendant does not even need to present evidence. It
is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proof.
But the defendant bears the burden of proof as to all affirmative
defenses which he sets up in answer to the plantiffs claim or
cause of action; he being the party who asserts the truth of the
matter he has alleged, the burden is upon him to 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 his favor.
EX #1: Plaintiff files a suit against a defendant for collection of
sum of money. Plaintiff presents no evidence, he loses. Right?
Plain and simple, he loses.
EX #2: Plaintiff files a case against a defendant for collection of
sum of money. Defendant sets forth an affirmative defense of
payment however the defendant does not present evidence.
Who wins here? It is the plaintiff. Why? Because the defendant
already admitted the existence of the debt.
WHERE BURDEN OF PROOF IS FIXED
Discussion: The burden of proof is fixed by the PLEADINGS.
The claim of the plaintiff, which he must prove, is spelled out in
his complaint. The defendant’s defenses, which he must
likewise prove, are to be found in his Answer to the complaint.
The burdens of proof of both parties do not shift during the
course of the trial. For example, the burden of proof to establish
that the defendant owes the plaintiff remains with the plaintiff.
The burden of proof to establish that the loan has been paid
remains with the defendant throughout the litigation.
What’s the antithesis of burden of proof?
It is the BENEFIT OF ASSUMPTION.
He who does not carry the initial burden of proof carries the
benefit of assumption, which means that he needs no evidence
to support his claim or defense in the meantime. A party who
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 3 of 17
satisfies the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of
assumption, passing the burden off to the other party.
For example, in a criminal case, the prosecution carries the
burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The accused conversely has the benefit of
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
to cause the acquittal of the accused. He does not even have to
present evidence. The accused wins.
However, if the evidence of the prosecution is strong, it is
deemed to have established a PRIMA FACIE CASE. Where a
prima facie case is established, the burden of presenting
evidence is effectively passed off to the defending party. The
accused therefore must present evidence to establish his
innocence. We will talk more about prima facie case when we
go to presumptions because the effect of a presumption is
already a prima facie case.
Another example is in a case for damages due to reckless
imprudence or what is known as a quasi-delict where the maxim
RES IPSA LOQUITOR applies. It’s my favorite in all of law.
It brings to mind my favorite case because of its simplicity —
Republic vs. Luzon Stevedoring
Bridge. Barge. Bangga. Ang bridge wala galihok. Kinsa’y
negligent? Ang bridge? The thing speaks for itself. Katong nag
operate sa tugboat or barge ang negligent.
REPUBLIC v. STEVEDORING (September 29,
1967)
As to the first question, considering that the
Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary
object and uncontrovertedly provided with adequate
openings for the passage of water craft, including
barges like of appellant's, it is undeniable that the
unusual event that the barge, exclusively controlled
by appellant, rammed the bridge supports raises a
presumption of negligence on the part of appellant
or its employees manning the barge or the tugs that
towed it. For in the ordinary course of events, such
a thing does not happen if proper care is used. In
Anglo American Jurisprudence, the inference arises
by what is known as the "res ipsa loquitur" rule.
In a case where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies, the
presence of facts and circumstances surrounding the injury
clearly indicate negligence on the part of the defendant. The
maxim applies whenever it is so improbable that such accident
would have happened without the fault of the defendant that a
reasonable man could find without further evidence that it was
so caused.
 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

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

(on the shifting of burden)
In civil cases, ang imong defense kay affirmative defense.
The defendant will say “oo nangutang ko pero bayad na”.
So the plaintiff is relieved of the burden of going forward with
evidence to prove the existence of the debts and now the
burden of evidence shifts upon the defendant to prove na tama
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
For example, if the court relied on the positive identification of
the witness, I will then prepare my witnesses, brief them or
introduce proof to refute such positive identification. I can still
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
prima facie case as stated by the court is refuted.
Q: What happens if the accused pleads a justifying
circumstance? Its self-defense, so accordingly the burden
proof shifts to the accused who must then prove the justifying
circumstance, what’s the quantum of proof required? Clear and
convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self- defense.

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
of proof or to be more technical, the burden of going forward with
the evidence, shifts to the accused who must then prove the
justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and convincing
evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense or in defense of a
relative or a stranger. Self-defense, like alibi, is a defense which
can easily be concocted.
Once the accused has admitted, it is incumbent upon him in
order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying
circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and
convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the weakness of the
prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, “for even if
the evidence of the prosecution were weak, it could not be
disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing.”
In short, a plea of self-defense is an admission that the accused
committed the killing but tries to avoid criminal liability by
alleging that the killing is justified. It is an affirmative defense
(confession and avoidance) in civil case. Because he admits to
the killing, the prosecution does not have to present evidence.
The burden is effectively shifted to the accused, leading to a
REVERSE TRIAL ORDER.
Reverse Trial Order
1. The accused presents evidence in chief on his claim on self-
defense
2. The prosecution then presents evidence in chief to refute the
claim (negating self- defense)
3. The accused presents rebuttal evidence
4. The accused presents surrebuttal evidence
So now, there is a change in the order of trial. Because the
accused admitted the killing, the burden of proving that it was
done in lawful self-defense is now upon him. Therefore the
burden of evidence, to initially go forward with the evidence is
upon the accused.
In civil case,
Come to think of it, the same thing happens in self-defense. For
example a defendant in a collection case files a Motion to
Dismiss based on an alternative defense. There will be a
hearing.
So what will happen? There will be a hearing on the motion to
dismiss where the defendant will present evidence to prove the
ground relied upon for dismissal. This happens prior to trial
proper.
So gi- admit nako ang utang does the plaintiff needs to present
evidence to prove the existence of the debt? No
Take note under 16, there is a hearing on the motion. At the
hearing on the motion, the party shall submit their arguments.
Section 2, RULE 16 . Hearing of motion. — At the hearing of
the motion, the parties shall submit their arguments on the
questions of law and their evidence on the questions of fact
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
go to trial, the evidence presented during the hearing shall
automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting the
same. (n)
so kinsay una mu submit ug evidence? Ang defendant.
Evidence presented is automatically reproduced for trial during
that preliminary hearing. But did I not tell you never to file a
motion to dismiss? You have to file an Answer with affirmative
defenses because of its inherent advantages. What will
happen? Even if you file an Answer with affirmative defenses, a
preliminary hearing will be had thereon as if a Motion to Dismiss
had been filed. It will lose the plaintiff’s right to amend his
complaint as a matter of right.
Section 6, RULE 16. Pleading grounds as affirmative
defenses. — If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the
grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded
as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of
the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a
motion to dismiss had been filed. (5a) The dismissal of the
complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the
prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim
pleaded in the answer. (n)
So during that preliminary hearing, who presents evidence
first? The party who alleges the affirmative defense of payment,
for example. Because that is already __ the existence of the
debt. Now during trial proper, if the affirmative defenses was not
believed by the court, can he change his 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 precisely allowed to do
so. That is the beauty of Civil Procedure.
Instance when the burden of proof is fixed upon the
accused by law?
In speedy disposition of cases RA 8493, Section 13. Remedy
Where Accused is Not Brought to Trial Within the Time
Limit. - If an accused is not brought to trial within the time limit
required by Section 7 of this Act as extended by Section 9, the
information shall be dismissed on motion of the accused. The
accused shall have the burden of proof of supporting such
motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going
forward with the evidence in connection with the exclusion of
time under Section 10 of this Act.
PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVE AVERMENTS
Negative allegations need not be proved whether in civil or
criminal cases. It is an expression of the general rule – “he who
affirms must prove, not he who negates”
GR: A negative allegation need not be proved.
EX: Negative allegations must be proved.
1. When such negative allegations are essential parts of a cause
of action or defense in a civil case or
 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.
Fabe, Isabelle (1:00-1:31)
What are examples of negative allegations that are
ingredients of the offense?
Example of illegal possession of firearms, you don’t have a
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.
What’s the example of an ingredient of an offense that is
negative? Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION
In civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an essential 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 a
document. It should be properly plead in the custody of the
person.
Just Take note of that in the case of Regalado, it’s in my book.
DOCTRINE OF EQUIPOISE OR DOCTRINE OF
EQUIPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.
The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the
parties are evenly balanced, where there is doubt on either sides
of the preponderates.
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
plaintiff and the evidence does not suggest the scale of justice
should weigh on his favor, the court should render a verdict in
favor of the defendant.
How do we simplify this? Let’s say there’s this boxing match –
Champion vs. Challenger, the score of the judges are the
same—
Meaning even based on the score cards. Who is the champion?
Still the champion. Same thing with happened to the case of
Cruz vs. DENR Secretary? Constitutionality of the Indigenous
People’s Rights Act. The petitioners there were Isagani Cruz
and Cesar Europa, challenging the IPRA. 5 Justices voting in
favor – and 5 justices still voting in favor, what happens to the
law? is it declared unconstitutional? Of course not, it is still the
status quo. Same thing in a boxing match— if it’s even, it’s still
the champion. Same thing with litigation.
What’s the status quo? The defendant has no liability. the
evidence is in equipoise. Who has the burden of proving?
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
BASIS
Article III of 1987 Constitution. Section 1. No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there
is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party
having the burden of proof fails upon that issue. Therefore, as
neither party was able to make out a case, neither side could
establish its cause of action and prevail with the evidence it had.
They are thus no better off than before they proceeded to
litigate, and, as a consequence thereof, the courts can only
leave them as they are.
Again, what do we have to remember? Status quo – because
evidence is equal. In short, where evidence is in equipoise the
court should rule in favor of the defending party because the
claimant was unable to discharge the burden or defeat the
presumption, the parties would stand as if the case was never
there.
In labor cases, if doubt exists between the evidence presented
by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be
tilted in favor of the latter. Again, the quantum of proof is not
equal to the parties here.
In criminal cases, their required quantum of proof is not equal.
The prosecution— proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
accused—only reasonable doubt.
In labor cases how does an employee prove illegal dismissal?
What’s the quantum of proof required?
substantial evidence or such amount of evidence as is sufficient
to support a conclusion as a reasonable mind might accept to
support the conclusion. (ANG TIBAY vs. CIR). The test there is
reasonableness.
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
law? is it substantial evidence? No. the quantum of proof is
different. It’s clear and convincing evidence.
If the standard of the employee is simply reasonableness of
evidence, what about the employer? It’s persuasiveness weight
of evidence— clear and convincing. That quantum of proof is
heavier compared to substantial evidence.
BAR QUESTION 1995
Explain the equipoise doctrine and cite its constitutional
basis.
 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
calls for answer in constitutional law/political law. let’s go to
presumptions.
Take note what need not be proved in Rule 129—
1. judicial admission,
2. judicial notice and
3. facts that are legally presumed.
PRESUMPTION
A presumption is an inference as to the existence or non-
existence of fact which courts are permitted to draw from the
proof of other facts. A presumption is an assumption of fact
solely from the rule of law which requires such facts to be
assumed from another fact or group of found or otherwise
established in the action.
Is presumption evidence? No. it is not evidence but it affects the
burden of offering evidence. It is not evidence in itself but it is an
assumption resulting from the evidence.
Take note, there is evidence then you presumed. Evidence
creates the presumption.
Example: X is creditor of C for 1M payable in 12 equal monthly
installments, if evidence is introduced that installment payment
is on December has been received by the creditor what’s the
presumption is created in obligations and contracts? that the
previous installments have been paid. What’s the fact you’re
presenting? The fact that you paid on December. What’s the
presumption established? Previous installments have been
paid, this is because of a law that receipt of a later installment
without reservation of a prior installments shall give rise to the
presumption that such installments have been paid. It does not
necessarily follow that there is a presumption applicable, you
don’t have to do anything. You still prove something, you still
present evidence. From that evidence that you already
presented that’s where the presumption comes from.
Take note there are different presumptions:
1. PRESUMPTION OF LAW —it is a deduction which the law
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
the facts appear which furnish the basis of the inference.
Such type of presumption is reduced to fixed rules and form
part of the system of rules.
2. PRESUMPTION OF FACT— a deduction which reason
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
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 8 of 17
discretionary on the court as derived from circumstances of
the case through common experience of mind. An
assumption of fact does not arise from any direction of the
law. It arises because reason itself allows a presumption
from the facts.
Suppose I punched Vicco, is there any presumption of law
that applies? If I punch him, the law presumes, nothing. But
there is a presumption of fact that can be based on human
experience. I punched him because maybe I don’t like him
or maybe he’s done something wrong. That’s a
presumption of fact. There’s no directive from the law for
you to presume a certain way.
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION— not permitted to be
overcome by any proof to the contrary. a presumption is
conclusive when the presumption becomes irrebuttable upon
the presentation of evidence and any evidence tending to rebut
the presumption is not admissible. The presumption is in reality
one of substantive law—it has the effect of a substantive law.
you are not allowed to refute
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION— which the law permits to be
overcome or controverted. A presumption is disputable or
rebuttable if it may contradicted or overcome by other evidence.
In other words, you can defeat the disputable presumption.
When evidence rebuts the presumption is introduced, the force
of the presumption disappears.
Going back to our example based on Article 1176, that evidence
of receipt of payment of a later installment gives rise to the
presumption that the previous installments have been paid but
evidence is shown that prior installments remain unpaid, the
presumption fails.
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE – a latin expression meaning on its
first appearance or by its first instance at first sight. Love prima
facie, love at first sight
It is used in law to signify that on first examination a matter
appears to be self-evident of the facts. In common-law
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
presumption. That’s their relationship.
Establishing a prima facie case meaning establishing or making
a case –example, a trial in criminal law, the prosecution has the
burden of presenting prima facie evidence on each element of
the crime charged against the accused. If the burden is
discharged, a prima facie case is established.
In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim
was in fact dead, that the defendant’s act caused death and
evidence that the defendant acted with criminal intent. If no party
 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
prima facie evidence.
To conclude, when a prima facie case is established it means
that the party with the initial burden of proof has discharged it. It
means that the burden of evidence has now shifted to the other
party who must present evidence to meet the prima facie case
against him. If he presents no evidence, he loses the case. It
almost has the same effect with presumption, but it has a
correlation.
A presumption in a way establishes a prima facie case. Why?
They have the same definition. If unrebutted, is sufficient to
support the conclusion. If there’s a disputable presumption – res
ipsa loquitor, that’s supposed to be disputable but if the
defendant does not present any evidence that he was not
negligent a prima facie case is deemed established, plaintiff
wins.
If it’s a conclusive presumption you have to present evidence.
Section 2. Conclusive Presumptions. – The following are
instances of conclusive presumptions:
Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular
thing is true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any
litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be
permitted to falsify it.
This the DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. I said
something to you and because I said something to you, you
acted on it (maybe you parted with money, you bought some
thing on the promise it is okay).
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.
What happens? The law will now presume based on the doctrine
of promissory estoppel.
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his land lord at the
time of the commencement of the relation of land-lord and tenant
between them.
“I will rent your boarding house” and then you are able to rent,
what is that? You are actually admitting that the person you
approached is the owner of the boarding house. Now at the time
of payment, “who are you, are you the owner?”.
What do you present? Evidence of establishment of tenant-land
lord relationship. What’s the effect? What’s the conclusive
presumption that takes place? The conclusive presumption that
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 9 of 17
is now applicable is that, the title of your land lord is conclusive
upon you. You cannot deny that. You cannot refute that.
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION—an inference of the law which
it makes so preemptory that it will not allow it to be overturned
by contrary proof however strong.
It is an artificially compelling force which requires a trier of facts
to find such facts conclusively presumed which renders
evidence to the contrary inadmissible. It is sometimes referred
to as irrebutable presumption.
Conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court are based on
the Doctrine of Estoppel. Under this doctrine, the person making
the representation cannot claim benefit from the wrong he
himself committed.
Under section 21, as an example, the Corporation Code—
persons who assume to be a corporation without legal authority
to act as such can be considered a corporation by estoppel and
shall be liable as general partners.
Section 21. Corporation by estoppel. — All persons who assume
to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do
so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities and
damages incurred or arising as a result thereof; Provided,
however, that when any such ostensible 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 be allowed to use as a
defense its lack of corporate personality.
One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as
such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there
was in fact no corporation.
You cannot anymore refute that you were acting as a
corporation. You really have liability.
Take note as well there are other conclusive presumptions.
JARCO MARKETING vs. COURT OF APPEALS
There’s a conclusive presumption that a person under 9 years
of age, cannot act with discernment – there’s no discernment at
all. No matter how you try to prove it.
Therefore, the rule, a child under 9 years of age is also
conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence.
You remember my example with my son— giving 50 pesos
Pepito. And he was 7 years old. 
 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
responsibility of children. Does it still apply? under the RPC
which the Pangilinan law amends, below 9, with or without
discernment, exempt from criminal liability. 9-15, would be
amenable to proof of discernment so it won’t be exempt from
liability.
PEOPLE vs GAA
Proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary as they
are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the
absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the
victim is below the age of 12 in the crime of statutory rape.
Section 48 of CA 141 in relation to Section 14 (1) of PD1529
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the
application for confirmation of title except when prevented by
war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to Government grant
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions
of this chapter.
What’s this PD1529? PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE
(b) that an unlawful act was done with unlawful intent
INTENT TO KILL
BITOL vs. PEOPLE
If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor’s intent to
kill is conclusively presumed because otherwise, if the intention to
wound, why would the victim die? So the intent to kill is conclusively
presumed in that situation
Lara, Marion ( 1:31-2:00)
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW
Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when presumed.
- Every contract on a negotiable instrument is
incomplete and revocable until delivery of the
instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto.
As between immediate parties and as regards a
remote party other than a holder in due 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 the case may
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 10 of 17
be; and, in such case, the delivery may be shown
to have been conditional, or for a special purpose
only, and not for the purpose of transferring
the property in the instrument. But where the
instrument is in the hands of a holder in due
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
is no longer in the possession of a party whose
signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional
delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is
proved.
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
how strong it is.
Sir shares his debate with his wife, Maam YY, the former
being a procedural law professor (Evidence) and the latter
being a substantive law professor (Succession):
When the law does not say that it is conclusively
presumed, it is susceptible to contrary proof. Kung
dili ginaingon sa balaod na conclusive siya, pwede
gyud na nimo irefute. Maam YY tells him that the
law on succession is based on conclusive
presumption. Does the law tell that it is 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? Unya ang
mga children kay walay buot. You cannot. Why?
Because the law presumes that the children are
always preferred over the grandparents. You
cannot present evidence. Art 992 of the New Civil
Code pa lang daan. What is the basis of that? It is
the presumed animosity between the legitimate
and illegitimate. Can you prove that there is no
animosity?
If it is conclusively presumed na naay presumed
animosity, then you cannot prove otherwise. But if
it is only a disputable presumption, then you can
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
entire law on succession is based in conclusive
presumption, or the Law on Intestacy, at least, are
all based on conclusive presumptions.
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are
instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe
a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in
any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it:
 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
the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them. (3a)
FIRST CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION
Now let us go to the first conclusive presumption: ESTOPPEL.
Estoppel in admission or representation is rendered conclusive
upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved
as against the person relying thereon.
DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (Danilo Mendoza
vs CA, GR no 116710)
According to that doctrine, an estoppel may arise from the
making of a promise, even though without consideration, if it was
intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact it
was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it would be virtually
to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other
injustice. In this respect, the reliance by the promisee is
generally evidenced by action or forbearance on his part, and
the idea has been expressed that such action or forbearance
would reasonably have been expected by the promissor.
In order to make out a claim of promissory estoppel, a party
bears the burden of establishing the following elements:
(1) a promise reasonably expected to induce action or
forebearance;
(2) such promise did in fact induce such action or forebearance,
and
(3) the party suffered detriment as a result.
DISCUSSION: In order for that conclusive presumption to apply,
you still have to present evidence. Kaning evidence on elements
of promissory estoppel.
SECOND CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the
time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them.
Related to the second kind of conclusive presumption is Article
1436 on Commodatum and Lease:
Art. 1436. A lessee or a bailee is estopped from
asserting title to the thing leased or received, as
against the lessor or bailor.
DATALIFT MOVERS VS BELGRAVIA REALTY
GR No. 144268, August 30, 2006
Conclusive presumptions have been defined as "inferences
which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to
be overturned by any contrary proof however strong." As long
as the lessor-lessee relationship between the petitioners and
Belgravia exists as in this case, the former, as lessees, cannot
by any proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive
presumption that Belgravia has valid title to or better right of
possession to the subject leased premises than they have.
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 11 of 17
That is supposed to be an absolute rule, but through
jurisprudence, nidaghan ang exceptions. Supposed to be kung
conclusive, dili na pwede irefute, pero based on jurisprudence,
naay exception.
EXCEPTIONS
1. In a case where the landlord-tenant relationship has
not been sufficiently established or where the very
existence of the relationship is the very issue of the
case. For example, in the case of:
CONSUMIDO VS ROS
GR. No. 166875, July 31, 2007
The conclusive presumption set forth in Rule 131, Section 2(b)
of the Rules of Court applies only when the landlord and tenant
relationship has been sufficiently established. In the case at bar,
this is precisely the issue to be resolved as petitioner has
consistently alleged that there was no lease agreement between
the parties. Moreover, respondents themselves have not
asserted ownership over the leased premises, the truth of the
matter being that respondents were never the registered owners
of the leased premises.
DISCUSSION: The conclusive presumption does not apply in
the case where the landlord-tenant relationship has not been
sufficiently established or where the very existence of the
relationship is the very issue in the case. remember diba, you
have to prove threshold facts in order for the conclusive
presumption to apply. So kung wala nimo naprove, dili siya
applicable or the very existence of the relationship is the issue
in the case, the conclusive presumption does not apply.
2. If there was a change in the nature of the title of the
landlord during the subsistence of the lease, the
presumption does not apply.
Sa sugod siya gyud ang tag-iya sa yuta pero in the middle of the
lease, nagchange ang ownership through sale, assign or
giquestion iyang title, etc. that can be rebutted by contrary proof.
Example is the case of SANTOS VS NATIONAL STATISTICS
OFFICE, April 6, 2011.
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced;
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the
latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
 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
for the later one is produced;
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the
whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the
payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the
money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed
or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of
jurisdiction;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid
before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that
all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for
arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by
them;
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
sufficient consideration;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made
before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the
instrument is dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
regular course of the mail;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown
whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for
all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he
disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of
five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be
opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes
including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an
aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for four years
since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed
hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not been known for
four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive
years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage
if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a
danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided, an
absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case,
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 12 of 17
before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a
summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the
rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent
spouse.
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course
of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a
contract of copartneship;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband
and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are
capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with
each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage
or under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
work or industry.
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who
are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire
properly through their actual joint contribution of money,
property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding
shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit
are equal.
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted
another marriage within three hundred days after such
termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in
the absence of proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have
been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born
within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage.
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the
celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have
been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born
within the three hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is
usual with things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed
or published by public authority, was so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports
of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is
published, contains correct reports of such cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey
real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to
him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of
such person or his successor in interest;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons
perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are
no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the
survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from
 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:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is
deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to
have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is
deemed to have survived;
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
older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between
those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
(kk) That 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, they shall be
considered to have died at the same time. (5a)
This is the longest provision. Hastang daghana.
NOTE: Please refer to Evidence Explained, pages 555-579
since the discussion is the same. No additional substantial
information.
Only up to letter (p) for this assignment (pls not include
notes in final TSN)
Martinez, Mizzy (2:00 – 2:31:12)
(p)That private transactions have been fair and regular;
This is the presumption of regularity in private transactions. This
is a presumption that all men act fairly, honestly, in good faith,
and that the individual intends to do right rather than wrong and
intends to do only what he has the right to do under the
circumstances.
Good faith is always presumed, and it is the burden of the party
claiming otherwise to adduce clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary.
These are related to presumptions. Like, kaning fraud. Diba
fraud cannot be presumed and fraud must be proven by clear
and convincing evidence.
(q)That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
Again, this is a presumption in relation to regularity.
And this is also one of the reasons why we have kana bitaw
exception to the hearsay rule – entries in the course of business.
And also as an exception to the best evidence rule – regular
course of business lang gihapon.
So, the presumption is same as to regularity. It covers both
public and private transactions.
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 13 of 17
Persons engaged in a trade or business are presumed to be
acquainted with the general customs, usages, and other facts
necessarily incident to the proper conduct of business.
(r)That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s)That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
sufficient consideration;
Just take note of letter (r) and letter (s). Two presumptions.
These two presumptions are related to Article 1344.
Article 1354. Although the cause is not stated in
the contract, it is presumed that it exists and is
lawful, unless the debtor proves the contrary.
(1277)
Making it what type of presumption? Merely disputable.
(t)That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made
before the instrument was overdue and at the place where
the instrument is dated;
A holder of a negotiable instrument is always presumed to be a
holder in due course.
(u)That a writing is truly dated;
(v)That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
regular course of the mail;
Now take note that when a mailed letter is sent by registered
mail, there exists a presumption under Rule 131 that it was
received in the regular course of mail.
“The facts to be proved in order to raise this presumption are:
a. That the letter was properly addressed with postage
prepaid, and
b. That it was mailed.”
While a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in
the ordinary course of mail, it is still merely a disputable
presumption. Especially so because of how slow our postal
service actually is.
Take note that in Civil Procedure Rule 13, Section 3, there is
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
courier service, ang rule is the date of receipt is the date of filing.
(w)That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown
whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered
dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose
of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years.
If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an
absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his
succession may be opened.
 EVIDENCE 2019
From the lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
College of Law | III Manresa 2019 – 2020
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes
including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not
been heard of for four years since the loss of the
vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part
in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four
years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under
other circumstances and whose existence has not
been known for four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four
consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
already death. In case of disappearance, where
there is a danger of death the circumstances
hereinabove provided, an absence of only two
years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in
any case, before marrying again, the spouse
present must institute a summary proceedings as
provided in the Family Code and in the rules for
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
the absent spouse.
Kani. Presumption na tag-as unya mga importante pa gyud na
presumption. Di na nako basahon. Akong buhaton, isummarize
nalang nako ang rules in relation to the so-called presumptive
death.
So, what is presumptive death? It is death inferred from proof of
a person’s long unexplained absence. Such a presumption
arises by prolonged absence of a person for a prescribed
number of years during which no one has seen or heard from
the person and there is no reason for the person’s
disappearance that would be incompatible with the finding that
the individual is dead.
So, summarize nalang nato kay taas kaayo ni siya na
presumption.
The general rule is 7 years. The absentee is presumed dead for
all purposes after an absence of 7 years. 7 years gyud siya.
But exceptions dapat atong timan-an.
First, 10 years if the purpose is to open his succession. Meaning,
mag-extra judicial partition na ta sa estate kung walay will or
magprobate na ta sa will, isettle na ang iyahang estate.
Mubayad na ta ug estate tax. 10 years.
Second, if the absentee after the age of 75 years, instead of 7
years, 5 years will be sufficient in order that his succession may
be opened.
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 14 of 17
Third exception, 4 years lang pwede na siya to presume a
person dead for all purposes including the opening of the
succession under circumstances when there is danger of death:
1. On board a ship
2. Hostilities at war
3. Force majeure
4. Flood, earthquake
Fourth, where there is a danger of death, an absence of only 2
years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage. 2 years lang.
Now take note that there is a provision under the Family Code,
Article 41:
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person
during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be
null and void, unless before the celebration of the
subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been
absent for four consecutive years and the spouse
present has a well-founded belief that the absent
spouse was already dead. In case of
disappearance where there is danger of death
under the circumstances set forth in the provisions
of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only
two years shall be sufficient.
In case of disappearance where there is danger of death, an
absence of only 2 years shall be sufficient. But generally, 4
years.
Take note of the term “well-founded belief that the absent
spouse was already dead.”
So, duha ka period under Article 41 of the Family Code.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent
marriage under the preceding paragraph the
spouse present must institute a summary
proceeding as provided in this Code for the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
the absent spouse. (83a)
So, imagine the situation. I don’t remember the legal
impetus. But the situation is there is this woman who was
married and then absent, presumed lost at sea during a sea
voyage. Pakasal siya usab after a period of 2 years. And
then he re-apeared. Duha iyang bana.
CASE: REPUBLIC vs SARENOGON(Feb. 10, 2016)
The “well-founded belief” requisite under Article 41 of the
Family Code is complied with only upon a showing that
sincere honest-to-goodness efforts have indeed been
made to ascertain whether the absent spouse is still alive
or is already dead.
 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
for the longest time. Dapat imo gyud gipangita and gi-ascertain.
(x)That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
So, whatever that means.
(y)That things have happened according to the ordinary
course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
So, meaning kung malinog then guba ang balay, ana ra na.
(z)That persons acting as copartners have entered into a
contract of copartneship;
(aa)That a man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage;
Recall the exception to the hearsay rule – common reputation in
relation to marriage. So what is the presumption that arises if
you see them together as husband and wife purporting
themselves to be husband and wife? That they are husband and
wife. You don’t ask questions.
(bb)That property acquired by a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other and who live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage,
has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry.
So, unsa gani ni siya? Familiar? Because you’ve seen that in
the Family Code. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the
contributions and shares are presumed to be equal. Kato bitaw
mga persons living together without the benefit of marriage. So,
dili siya community property, conjugal partnership of gains – co-
partnership lang na siya. Or kana lang bitaw na presumption of
equal shares lang siya.
(cc)That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a
woman who are not capacitated to marry each other
and who have acquire properly through their actual
joint contribution of money, property or industry, such
contributions and their corresponding shares
including joint deposits of money and evidences of
credit are equal.
(dd)That if the marriage is terminated and the mother
contracted another marriage within three hundred days
after such termination of the former marriage, these
rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the
contrary:
These are presumptions of paternity.
300 days? Pila na ka-bulan? 10 months.
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 15 of 17
Is it possible for a fetus to have an intrauterine life above 9
months? Yes. The average worldwide is actually 274 days.
Possible naman siya na mmu-abot 300days and many a journal
will tell you na the longest intrauterine life sa fetus is 300 days.
This is based on medical fact.
So what are these presumptions?
(1)A child born before one hundred eighty days
after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage
is considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the three
hundred days after the termination of the former
marriage.
Take note that there is a similar provision under Article 168 of
the Family Code which is a reproduction of what the Civil Code
provides. Take note that there is no presumption of legitimacy
or illegitimacy when a child is born after 300 days following the
dissolution of marriage or the separation of the spouses.
Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy must prove such.
(2)A child born after one hundred eighty days
following the celebration of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived
during such marriage, even though it be born
within the three hundred days after the termination
of the former marriage.
Take note sa mga presumption: 300 days after termination of
the first marriage and then 180 days after the subsequent
marriage.
(ee)That a thing once proved to exist continues as long
as is usual with things of the nature;
This is known as the presumption of continuity of existence.
(ff)That the law has been obeyed;
(gg)That a printed or published book, purporting to be
printed or published by public authority, was so printed
or published;
Example: Official Gazette
(hh)That a printed or published book, purporting
contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
country where the book is published, contains correct
reports of such cases;
Example: Philippine Reports; SCRA
(ii)That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to
convey real property to a particular person has actually
conveyed it to him when such presumption is
necessary to perfect the title of such person or his
successor in interest;
 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,
battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died
first, and there are no particular circumstances from
which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined
from the probabilities resulting from the strength and
the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
These are presumptions of survivorship.
Take note that this would apply, mga rules na akong i-ilustrate
pa-isa-isa, it applies to practically everything except for
purposes of succession.
So, if you are not going to apply this for purposes of succession,
what is the indication of (jj)? It does not matter kung related.
Diba? Dili mag-matter kung related ning two persons who
perished in the same calamity. So ngano nato kinahanglan
mahibal-an kung kinsa nauna namatay?
Kanus-a importante and pre-decease? In succession para
mahibal-an nato kung kinsa magmana, gikan kang kinsa. So,
unsay purpose aning (jj) if you are not going to apply it for
purposes of succession? Diba? It’s kinda weird lang but we have
to go through it.
1.If both were under the age of fifteen years, the
older is deemed to have survived;
In no. 1, maturity is preferred.
2.If both were above the age sixty, the younger is
deemed to have survived;
In no. 2, maturity is not preferred.
3.If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty,
the former is deemed to have survived;
Maturity, in no. 3, is preferred. My mom is 62 years old.
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 older;
Ipresume nato na ang male ang nagsurvive if over 15 and under
60.
5.If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other
between those ages, the latter is deemed to have
survived.
If both are under 15 – A is 14 and B is 12. What is the
presumption? The older is deemed to have survived. So
namatay una ang mas bata by reason of his immaturity.
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 chances of
survival.
ABERILLA, ALTISO, ASTILLO, FABE, GUERRERO, GUINOMLA, IGBALIC, LARA, MARTINEZ, TAN,N., VIRIGILIO | EVIDENCE 16 of 17
If one is over under 15 and the other is above 60 – A is 14 and
B is 62, the younger is deemed to have survived.
If both be over 15 and under 60 but one is male the other is
female – A is male 59 and B is female 21. The male is deemed
to have survived.
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.
This is arbitrary. If there is evidence to the contrary then present
that evidence.
Under the same paragraph, note that both persons perished.
Both of them are actually deceased. The question being
answered is simply “Who died ahead?”.
If there is available evidence of survivorship, that one died
ahead of the other, even if purely circumstantial, the paragraph
does not apply at all.
Take note, finally, that for me, it is utterly useless. Let’s say for
example, naay mga tao who perished in the same fire. Different
ages, different sexes. Unsa gusto nimo iestablish? Pareha man
sila namatay? For what purpose? What possible evidentiary
purpose can this presumption apply?
(kk)That 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, they shall be considered to have died
at the same time. (5a)
Kani, precisely for succession ni siya.
That is the general rule - as to which of them died first,
whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
prove the same
You do not go to the presumptions yet. You have to prove the
same. Kung kintahay gusto nimo i-allege na nauna namatay si
A kaysa B. But in the absence of proof, there is a presumption
of simultaneous death na Dungan sila namatay.
Kani, importante ni siya na presumption because enaay pratcial
application. So, in this case, these are legal heirs or intestate
heirs of one another. And the doubt is still, which among these
two related persons died first. They are legal or intestate heirs.
So, when these conditions are present, consider the following.
Again, the rule is, if you want to allege that one died ahead of
the other, you have to prove the allegation. We will not make
any presumptions. That is what this provision tells us.
1. So, consider, if there is no doubt or no actual evidence,
do not apply paragraph (kk).
 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