pesto RUES ON EVOENCE of nay be made by testimony as to 9 cases in which character oF 9 tea stares Taim_or defense, proof may at carte. cific instances of that perso aa ae RE hese provisions ae selexplanatory RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDEN AND PRESUMPTIONS. Section 1. Burden of proof and_burden o dence, ~ Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue neces. sary t0 establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Burden of proof never shifts. nce is the duty of a party to idence sufficient to establish or rebut fact in issue to establish a prima facie ease, Burden of evidence may shift from one party to ww Nores mi Cases ast 1 in the course of the proceedings, de. os ptonthe stns ath cas - Cla) yon and De #00 ¥ BP, GR. No. 184565, November Hid that the party who alleges face were 2 28 ping it tat the Burden of poo asthe Sele fet evidence othe as ne neces scam defense by the amount af esen cai a that in cv cases, the ren of prot eee ste amt, ho i requted to exabish hice na 0 eance of evidence and that once the ple he ae hs cise, the burden of evidence sift whe zit who, i Cun, has the Duden Yo esahish Re sees sion vs Ch GR No, 124853, February 24,1098, ex “patti lation bermeen burden Of pect aot Cee weet crorcg 1 Jon be et (He) We ahora ech roe haste bende of proat and eee seems acyl cae the burden of pret nes sae fal ina Gleason pall 3 et ase in orb avr the dy ore beet ee cif to deindant to convey lana oe ‘atte ethene ver rus be returned in Ree Fee cover Gl cae, he peg bang ae se pol ms proce a preponderance of evden tee, spa having to rely on the strength of so her og ene and oot upon the weakness ef he deendaare Tee Sento “preponderance of erdene” Tees wo eneres ‘heh of greater weigh, or more convincing ae wiih ‘Sein potion oa boom, means prob a tu Sn the core of wal ina cl ease, one paket me HEMLINE, EMDENCE (PART 1, RULES T1302 SOSia revseo RES OX EvoENce PAE Sl canes © defendant to come ela : Bere suppnt beeen Pedro and Juan, the later has the Ge of ON PRESUMPTIONS. A presumption isan assumption of fac esting froma rule of aw which requzes such fet to: be aesumea fog heer factor groupe fctsfound or otherwise exablsiet irihe acon. Kam inference of the existence or pe laence of fc whieh courts ace permite draw fs prot he fast However, presumption isnot evidence Eovistly alec the burden of offering evidence, Under Secu 3 Rule 31, disputable presumption ae satin, ‘Fanconi, but may be conradited and overcame by eke eience™ Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The follow Ing are instances of conclusive presumptions: la) Whenever a party has, by his oF her ovs © eclaration, act, or omission ieee silly and deliberately led another ve be lieve a particular thing true, and to act Goon cosh babel te arate esc fing Heigation arising astef cek ae talon, ator omianlon, Be pence fag and teri NG GR No 66715, Sepembe 18 190, id a whys a poy as, yb own ect et Sv mesma delberny dentro at tng wean oc spon such ble Se oa Spm ating out of uch dcrton 5 ab permite 0 ampel es whenever party has, by his own deca sat or omission, intenionally and) debra Ted Shire beleve 2 partular hing cue, and 9 26 spon ‘Chel, he cannot, ina gation srising out of such {lumina or omision, be permiued to fs The tines eoppel by condct re (1) hat there mast have {ena represetation or concealment of ater fas (2) thre etenation must have Been made seth oowedge (eae acy (3) tha the party to whom ke was made mist tocteen gnvant of the uth of te mace, and (4 hat i fur hane been made with intention thatthe oder ary la pon opp aries when one, by his acs, representations. of sno, or by is sence when he ought 10 sesk ou. ‘ray oxtrowgh eulpabie negligence ines abotface 0 xt and such ot cote ceala —_ sobs et tha he wb gh hg MES ted ndany the cxscne of ed ae ns Shh Cou emplned hain eoppe, a parr shih der ego ona lence av wel from words, Esoppel by senees at (©) The tenant is not permitted to deny the tide of his of her landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them, (2) ores 90 Ca sands Monto Ser ne, spatiale the meaning of ise ‘on: 170509, June ‘The Mish Cont oppo tenant \Welind no merit inthe ettone alegaton va ine Feponden had m0 athe oleae [ES beer the lamer fale top mero administrator : cove that he ‘Te Res of Cou psec the expends ee ‘from being questioned by the petitioner, as lessee, re: tii Se oe ef pn ee ijt premier Sidon 20, ta {i out nates that eta ia perme ne ‘tere of is anda sie tine Seco tet ote relton of nd! Stes ees thom are 106 fie Chil Coe eer soe tora lee of abe esop taa ssing te tote ng ned oe ages es Ste ‘Thus provisions ar the petitioner rom contesting the repoouents tle over the subj ecses. The ‘dal reationship beeen xt ol esr and [stesiee) cares th ts rengnton oth srt te Asse, the petone 8 estopped (fom dey ing the) andre ort ase beer te nt aly in Ges), but ao in some thie penan ae [he remains) In possesion of the sable premier ‘nd unt (he surtenders] possesion to the lr Tis enopel applies eventhough eo ad a fe ot the tine fhe telaton of (ee) ler sd (el esse ae crested, and my be serie ately by ‘he xg! leo, fun abo by thse wha suceced IS le" Once a comatose swe 5 beREvSED RULES OW Evoence rycen th PIE, the Hee ANA by any howee song, ert the concept Pea, te enor a ie wor sen ssn tthe subject premises than hee 8 C the sabe premises thn ee The Cou has explained in Tami. Tso Ind hon of eran lee Aepend on the formers tle bat on the betwee the pats, lowed By the poem the premises by the lessee under sack ape! ‘AS tong asthe late remains in unccrseoe Si material whether he esr feo any le aa ~ at the time ye nag ‘hips entered nto. cations ome ra. ‘The ule on estoppel agains tenants is subject ro a qu featon, Ie dos not apply ithe landlord's title has expo hus ben eomveyed ro another, or has been defeated by te Daramount subsequent tothe commencement of lessor lesee reitionship. In ether words, f here wos a change Ut te notre ofthe le ofthe Tandon during dhe subsistence of lease, thn the presumprion does not apply. Otherwise, fe ‘satre of the landlords ttle remains as ie was during 0 Noves ao Cases isa cet in ind Sr ct rn oe ‘is ecoppel applies even though the lessor had no tite at the Ser aya eh oe raat sec, 3. Disputable presumptions. — The follow: lng presumptions are satisfactory if uncontra: eted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: Adspuable presumption has been a species of evidence ‘tray be accepted and acted on where there is no her ‘idee to uphold the contention for which it stands or ane ‘cha be overcome by ather evidence" Noe that the following presumptions ae stator if montadicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by ihe evidence. “are vs CA, 242 Pl 345, cng [V1 Fano, The Revised ules “pape ws De Gea, GR. Na, 105025 Feb 9, 1986 ing 1ARevs RULES ON EvoeNce (0) That a person Is Innocent OF crime, cn ni cin eh ee ta sustain eee ay poh sores rae a Ce i reg eral ce ee nea cae acta gota aaa snc kata ek ey, eens i th eben must etal the truth of the Bare fe oe an ee a par eceeeerecera Peete eee cee ee ed or peepee heres ee ‘The requirement of prof beyond a reasonable doubts this ital role sm our eriminal procedure for cogent reas The aus duting & criminal prosecution as at sale Inez of immense importance, bath because of the posi ity hat he may lose his Hberey upon conviction and beense of he ceri that he would be stigmatized by the eon fon. according, a soley thar values the good aie od Fredo of every individual should not condemn man fx Noves ano Cases ° 28 casivion of crime when theres reason dou abot Seat ‘That an unlawful act was done © nlawful intent; done with an trie vit dles because ofa deliberate act of the mae: fo, itett Kl is conclusively presumed = Te inten toll 6 kewise presumed from the fae of nh ules the accused proves by convincing evidence ther ‘pol the justifying circumstances in Article 11 or any o the ‘oping circumstances in Arce 12, both ofthe Ressed es ode, is resent when it has been proven that che appellants commited te unlawful acs alleged, i is properly presumed that they Reerconmited with full knowledge and. with crninal ‘Sie and iti incumbent upon them fo rebuesuchpresump When the Iw plainly forbids an act tobe done, andi is one bya person, the law implies the gully intent although ‘feofender was hones’ mistaken asf the meaning of te ang hope CRN Gs Ape Fe Coma, GR No 1340, Coben a > acim im 25 ro Te $4 Papa evoeo RES ON Evcence wena te” amg a_i gh eran cic ee oe fee ‘Pam fad maybe presumed fom the fat 2 on edge ace eee aetna a meee ae bee ae nears ak Secs it rite nee Scere iene “give rise tothe presumption. suficendy In Aba People, GR No, 150129, Api 6,200, te respon of cima ten ill not, however, stoma lp apply to all charges of technical malveraton bene ‘lsturement of publi und for public use Is per set iawn she absence of any presompsion of way Inez the burden of roving by competent eidene thst Spelt ato paying the terminal leave Denes fen ‘per ofthe Sia State College was done with emia Ine es po he pesecuton (©) That person intends the ordinary com sequences of his or her voluntary act; Noresnocases _ tbe fundamental ule of con nein ia ee ste tha no man of ne mind wil be peed mora. The a5 Wells feasn and care ay perat enc’ incnlos to sma heen ta es 4 bik ito the air he cameo 2 fe dln ntnd that shoul fale gee ay cay st fret nlanmae eee eh sft sey that he int ind brs ee Stet trough the hea. ekher tw ner eons, ‘em a aw hit sty hat he dd to ied aoe (@) That a person takes ordinary eare of his ‘other concerns; nde Seton 3 (@), le 121 ofthe Roles of Coun, es reseed that person takes ordinary creo his cancers, ce the nvral presumption is tat ane doesnot sgh 8 treaent thou fis informing hse fe cones td Ccomuences I rau is aleged, mus Be powed by cer {at eomiocing evidence, because faud i nt rere ‘tons mast be proven Dy sultsent eigence ese fet alegaton i definitely ao evidence goes wit ‘ing eo se who alleges aud risa sfecting = ‘msc mast substance his or ber lean, sce treed that 2 person fakes edinary cae of so etoa fa cones. ants pate TERSAoNE have Deen ye rep oe (©) That evidence willfully 5 would be adverse if produced; "4 at Ete oy Wel conse A forthe ater ten (10) plastic sachets of sas found lasde the Vicks Vapor je rca ae mos ares the Wal court ere in eying on te respon of regularity. Contrary thet Fading we find that tere were legions and et ence tha should have ted eo be eaefl i i on is resumption. 8c va te il or Site ta aes wo rng wae fd his fither before they were snes frog ‘Me twold nt be impotent {Save te move w imple es SOS toon While is ede the ple ees, maces nace dng panes oe are eve to 0 he tin haa Mor sara he pessntn of rey cn tt prea over the consis penton oI fecene ad canot, by tal, conse palo ‘eyo reasonable doubt. To presumption, iru a presumpaon diprale coma) grea ‘hen challenged Uy evden canoe sre nd Ing pon ‘witout the presumption of reply, be tesinois ike ple wae tt stand oi own mers fe defers canot be burdened with vig 0 Apu these esimoaier Here, the sence of any telinony er ther evidence rouge handing fhe ten (10) pie sachs este tre the) Sere wmed ove becomes atl forthe pcan Neuse me camot be ean sna pressing Aelita the gs had not Ben tampered teinby anor anesung ater. Ins, he gap in the proseatons evidence posing the Weng and every value ofthe pohibied ams sled ened do ot esablsh pool beyond fenonabe dour tht te dags ened i cour (reve te same ies confisted om Ramos” (Ci ‘Sons omited)|saa ate orn cal {o subm tbe mayor's permit and the business permit jet Th ct ian ge hab med et pin aac soit ete, ty se cate sae ate ee Sn irc coe ee thet hehetna ee a adverse if produced. ~=_— 2 “hs resimprion doesnot apply if (a the evidence the dips of bth pes; (B) the suppression ws mt ‘nl (ois mevelycoroboratve or cumulative nd {hesupyenion ean exerele ofa pilege.™ In Rue Css Mel Core, Ine. vs. Olpares, GR. Ni 19737, Febuary 12,2008, Olivares” refusal to present ex aoe the peenaton of, See's report was used mt Vrs cmered by the. peleged communieation ewe Pica an patient ERA ee at 4 ne Spe nn Noresmo ces on ‘That money paid by one to another Gueto the latter, ee tae sum of money Sut fled by Tantséa Conan tua ind Develonment Corporation gain Unease ‘ean Resources Corporation, the defendant ped ey sd te laa, however the decison war hea ‘Tine High Cour, it was eld tho Uniwide ate oe ‘pay the contactor for such addoal works See Be fae ac been authored in wring, hos a xbieg ‘Sp leico reimbursement not under Ac 1725 bu under $i provstn of av. Unide's burden fesse ESvak to reimbursement becomes even more cea PE gh of she general presuneion conse in Secon Stl 21 ofthe Rules of Cou thot money pad one aber was de fo he later (That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter eis presumed that when Pedr, for example, deives tn sks of jasmin ce to Jus, the deiner belonged 0 anand nat Petra () That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid; “he seed ule shat one who pled payment as the tude of proving Even where the err ables an pment, he genera ul that the ons ress onthe eon Son yon, ner than on he credo fo eve BOyt. The dr Ha the burden of showing. {en ar heaton has ben dseharged py 2 Soe be der inode some eden fp AT TOS STi rar wih he evidence one Serer ben of root = sho he aes tsuneo dui some eldest tn aCe Croton DFS Sports Unie, an te ste Deanber 10,2008, the pene MS, Sopied. See the rempondent a’ climing te ot ‘Seay pid oar the srecs ender by tear ‘wed th flrme nes the den ons en (© That prior rents oF installments had ‘been paid when a receipt for the tater ‘one is produced; te the case of eres. Gare (7 Pil. Re, 162), ews si that xt eee was evidence before the former ret od ben pid but as Bots that wae Conse (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 ‘whieh a person possesses, or exercises sess of owmerhlp ove, art wn ‘him of her; me ‘Sic as possesion of stolen proper, he canbe dot pes a the autor ofthe te. Inceldonio People, G. No, 200137, uy 1, 2015, a bey wth force upon things, Geedenigs defense nee fre war at home with is wile, leping the ige the Sion fis we comoborated Ne statement The gk Cres thugh ME. Justice Jose Cava Mendoza dil not Sun econo’ ine of defense The High Cou appied ‘ele presumpeion, thus “clon wa, fc, ag neni posession {some ofthe sole tems when the pale ees flagged down ht mocoeyledarig tr flawep Sa hin posessn of the sil ems Secon 30, ate 131 ofthe Revised Rules of Gout poses at 3 pecon found in possesion of hing taken he So. {apo recent roms ere ter and he det tiene ac ater, a tig which 3 person fore or exrcues at of owner ove, Celedonio never chimed ownership of the sublen fems hen he ged soca sens wefan i ib fotoyele comparem which We bad col om,pee ‘Ssopion but he aed tive a justihablc gan Saree eon ay va rope Mab, G2. Ne 17994), Aa aunt i ase oe To Nea Bate ps Cour hough i Sates aS Sethe cme pases eee ‘oem ans et sec ie “Tbe dsm found ia Pople. Tia cet x plow te comet scapeaty bra ith ge eee ‘sed On the othe hand, exsructve pose Diace where te cotand i Towed, Shue ' Noreeme cases Es ‘Thus, comficon ne ee be preted pene ‘sve pomeston ans ste gf oot pisesslon would not epee fe eee Sk Fat of pseon maybe proved yee ‘pial eden ad ty sot nee prove ti he acted al Inelge eat $iSeolTad cnt aula tae se Sisk ye wel of oirins arabe tndeneat ese the mine may be premed fom tet ht ‘ovat cete r po ih epee ey oy ews In Maeabre' cs, the dene was sale ope Stat een fefing the showing of enna po (fea we te abu fond tn bil Macs Ittence tat someon eve owned the Sabu eo ‘Sich by iat tsffcten to exon the Be Simon. The presumption sf omenhp tu ex Set Ncabre Moreover, ts welled tt the defence of aor dein the sen fn ‘ache eidenc, aay wed with darby the cour fori can be xsl enoeted, pec ein the Digs a 6 Ste Mabuga v8. Pople, GR. No 142039, May 27, 2004, ‘eoimned that before an Inerence of gull ang fork freon of recently len goods ean be made, however, Ie felowing base facts need to be proven by the proses x (thatthe exe was commie (2) that te cineos mid eet 9) tht We len prope TEST pouonon of he dtendang ag ORY {an nae xpn hs posession stir rer pps morere of conse Eien ly proving sone ving corns hve tobe {i psesion mas be unexplained by any image {5 Seyausson muse ity seco and Cae ge seumante cane” ome meresing abo isthe explanation given in the cot otunge ele (spre), wherein the High Cour ea tenga down in the case of Askew v United Staee tho é ve teaching of Askew United Stats mu tsb ons al We hve Bere ave to the pose {he src er fhe ts of3 st al ig pound to pesane ee gut othe ponents Cue aplan: the presumption be ‘ns Inte pce he fae pone Son stands_alone,wholly-unconecte ‘sanyo ciecmtances ts ele ‘erties nower fg veryall Geile) ‘Sina ye ally oaced the ae Sess score fo the psec 2 ores me Cases os “That the fac of possesion alone, whey anconseced Sie oe aoe hy bcd amo ‘any ae the mee osction ee assed of uals en whan “maze ca ‘andi oa sna conan nr ea HERne Ine hens apse on ee ‘teed by mean of viene agate mcs fade onthe ft of person ste Cau ‘galeaton fe pusuotan toe» pe nd Stponenion of the penal cfc Ssnyog so ‘he peso robbed ankle soni he ‘toc he aaresion the eho the persons (0) That a person in possession of an order fon himself or herself for the payment of the money, oF the delivery of anything, thing accordingly eo she who in possession of an order on himse ot Sei forthe paomemt of the mane, oF te dlvery afa evsto Res Ov Eveence anything i presumed that be oF she has pai UBverel the hing a the case maybe, | "M MOREy (0) That s persom acting in a publleofteg was regularly appointed or eleetea When the Cnsinton mandated that a governmen, cal emplyee may aot be removed or suspended de pets of aw, the aw presumes, in proves Sm tht» pon aig ina publ office was wae ‘pointed or ceed fo and that “octal dary hee ey replay pesormes™" (=) That official duty has been regu performed; (ne such dsputable/ebutable presumption is that m cial actor du hasbeen regularly performed. resnp- ton of ths nate i indged by the Iv Tor the flo tame! reasons: frst innocence, and not wong dg. [Sto be presumed; snd, an offal oth will noc be Wo le: and hr a repulian form of goverament same Susie lng less limi placed upon controverses a feraln tt std confidence feposed in cath goverment eparonent or agen by every other sich. department gn at feast othe extent of such presumption Ths, hs Presumption evidences 9 rule of convenient publc poly Tineraly ppd and wichoot which great dstess wool "ing i e afas f men™ rsuaocts, (0) That 2 court, oF judge acting as such, ‘whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, ‘as acting in the lawful exercise of ja. Hsdietion; A court— sthether inthe Piippines or elerere — en jit presmpson tha is acting in the sl exer of rion, and that regulary performing oil fay he jodgment may, However, be asaled there neo want of aro, wan of aie to the pry (soy iu or lar mistake of nw or fce™ Hence on ‘eauteatiy ofthe foreign jdgmen proved, te burden fame kon grounds provided for in paragraph 0) of Secon, Role 39 of the Rules of Cou son the pry legge foreign judgment” (0) That all the matters within an issue taised im a ease were lald before the court and passed upon by it; and in tkemanner that all matters within an ised in a dispute submitted for tration were laid before the arbitrate land passed upon by them; z Issue (p) That private transactions have been fair and regular; Under Section , Rule 191 ofthe Rules of Cou, the fa lowing ate diab presumptions: 2) peiate tants hve bees it and teglar, (2) the ordinary couse o es hs be alone and (3) there was sulfcenecoa ffaton fo eon. These presumpons operate spin 3 cerry whe has at inroduced proof to rebut then Te Joseese they erated, and hi f no proa othe ces ‘presented end ofeted, wil preva. The burden of pet ‘eins wheres ut bythe presumption, the one wh thn burden s reeved for the time Being, om inode fvience In supporto te averment, bechuse the Pei to stand inthe pce of esdence unless rebutted" Aa, 5 fraud, he rule hate who alee est mistake aleing 9 trenscion mus substantiate hi ae ores me cases a nce spread ta pee leo sd mecpular The COU Ras sessed time ond’ apa de hg be ore peace ee eo Seg os Sette nt clues ee ae unt De poral ty che ta es Soo (@ That the ordinary course of business has been followed: Unde th Rules on idence, special Section 3, Rae tnt the pestmptons “thatthe urinary coe of buss fase flowed” and "tbat things happened ccoetng to Treinry course of nature andthe onary babs of He re dpumble presumptions thx can ely be overcome by ‘Sarandpeponderan evidence ™ (® That there was a sufficient considera. tion for a contract; cor is presume tobe supported by cause or com Sdenion The presumption that a conract has sere ‘enidentioncannor be overtho y a mare assertion chat Eas mo consideration. To overcome the pression, the "eed lack of consideration mus be shown by preponde- {nc of evsdence The bude to prove lack of conseraton tesypn hoes legs"Reyse0 RULES OW EvCeNCe agin ender Ston 3 ale 131 of Ree ‘Bians nave been fait and regular; (2) the ordi 8 eee ey lone nd te) Sine cefeation for contact. These presumpens aS nt ay ch bs wr pe ae nee of pee a reprint cs ey eed nd age 8 to the comray is presented and offered, will preg Sie Gomt clon or he ae ae teeta caters in spe of te ee sn rr Coed Ee pa nal eo eh (0) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufflelent considers, tion; During he tia ofan aeton, the party who has the but den of pont upon an issue may be alded in estan hs thm or defen by the operation of a. presumption, a expressed diferent, by the probative value which the at Stiches co a specific state of fects. A. presumption miy ‘operate agains his adversity who has not inteodced pra rebut the presumption. The effect of a legal prestmain ‘pon a burden of pro iso ereate the necessity of preseig fidence meet the legal presumption or the prima fe Sie cae crested there, and which if no proof to the eortan i presented and offered, wll prevail. The burden of on remains where ti, but bythe presumption the one wi> hs that burden is relieved forthe time being from inode NoTes ana Cases Ey este suppor ois averment, bea the spin the place of evidence unless chung. 7M ste Seon 3, Re 131 of he Res of coun nian ang te a mt el sea the al a ce fe satee and) Tha 8 negatable nseoment one sa olen come ere Seo set Ape 9s proper sees et nnremces Toe at et Ha te Si snr aoe sat So Ee enable coer at ts he ‘pean pent hon ee AS Cette Hocumene where ser Tony a care he ae PEELS nay ke ne seen marr tewer ov mae ka alr mmertetee py etreascaae tl Tee a kere rae wed ceca Se Rice oth at ce Serta coon ca eee ae oe Sa cn Bur als sed cme wh (® That an indorsement of a negotiable in- strument was made before the insteu-ment was overdue and at the where the instrament is date Place prov is self explanatory (a) ‘That a welting is truly dated; This poison elexplanatory. (©) That a letter duly directed and mates was received in the regular course a the mai The fst be prove tase hs presumption a () thc he eer wes propery added eh postage prepa, {BE hawt aed Once these fase pret at fren ant te ter was oeeed by Be cosa ‘Eo art cold fave been vansmiged co him Cran cou of the ma. ut one of thes es Sips pesumpan oes ot ie (0) That after an absence of seven years it being unknown whether or not the ab- sentee still lives, he or she is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession. ‘This poison explanatory ‘he absentee shall not be considered dead ‘uc the purpose of opening hie ar har succession Soa after an absence of ten years. Ihe rahe appeared after the age of seventy-five years, UEiosence of five years shall be sufficient i ‘ee that his or her succession may be opened, the following shall be considered dead for am purposes including the division of the estate {mong the heirs: (a) A person on board a vessel lost due: ing a sea voyage, oF an aircraft which is missing, sho has not been Iheaed of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft; (2) A member of the armed forees who ‘nas taken part In armed hostilities, and has been missing forfour years; (A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances fand whose existence has not been known for four years: and (If marci person has been absent O Toe taur consecntive seat ihe Spouse present may contract 8 sib- ‘SSquene marrage i he rss hs © SWelttounded elit thatthe absenteven RUSS ON Ev eee a ees ed Betoesance nae ce danger of death, the circumstat? ‘arame eons ene teens nae a er see eee arn stan sree ore mat nat a Sa cae rs cea eta te it th seer without Pb (8) That acquiescence resulted from a beliet that the thing acquiesced in was ecn- ormable to the law oF faet; (9) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and orli- nary nature habits of life; (@) ‘That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of co-partner ship; ‘These re ll sel explanatory. Nore aio Cases ar (0a) That @ man and woman deportin themselves as husband and wife ak entered into lanl contract of nan singer Aman and woman who are living in marl elaions ante sae Tot are presumed to elegy Sind By virtue of a legal mariage contac, and is pre Sta can only be Tebutted by slices conan 2 The basis of human society throughout the cilied wld is tha of mariage. Marriage in this urisdiction is aot tly ac contac, but iis a new relation, an instiaxion a th maintenance of which the public is deepy interested Cmerquealy, every intendment of the ln eons toward lelnng matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent fsony are presumed, in the absence of any counter prsmption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact, imi. The reason that such is the commen order of ‘ce, ond ifthe partes were noe whae they this old ‘henseves out as being, they would be living inthe conta ‘alton of decency and of a. A presumption established by ber Cade of Chil Procedure is that aman and a woman Aigoning themselves as husband and wife have entered ito 1 anf contrac: of mariage, Semper ~ prasunitur ro ‘avian ~ Always presume marriage."r Reveeo RULES ON Eve (pb) That property acquired by a man ang. woman who are capacitated to mat? Meh ether and who. tive exch” Sian cach other as husband ange Without the Benefit of marriage ore Gers wold macriage, bas boon obiakey by deejoint efforts, work or induae ‘hen a nan and a woman who are eapacitated toma cach bie live exuvely with each other as husband ard ite without te benefit of mariage or under a void may Tie tot wages and salaries shall be owned by them by ‘hin shares and the property acquired by oth of hes, Seg ther work o industry shall be governed by the ms fon coowners. the absence of proof 10 the contrary, properties a aquired whe they tived together shall be presumed 0 bite Ae obtained by thir joint efforts, work or Industry, and Shall be owned ty them In equal shares. For purpose of Arle 147 ofthe Famuly Cee ofthe Philippines, & ary wh As ox puta inthe acquisition of the other pany ofany property shal be deemed to have contebuted jotnty inthe Sequston thereof the former efforts consisted inthe at {nd maintenance of the fauly and ofthe household Efe inthe care and maintenance of the family and household are regatded as contributions tothe acquistin of Nores aio Cases en eames opey By On8 who Ms 0 slay o cone e eee (co) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have ac- quired property through their actual Joint contribution of money, property for industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares, including Joint deposits of money and evidences of eredit, are equ; “faua” isthe presumprion (da) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another mar- riage within three hundred days after such termination of the former mar lage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: (2) A child born before one hundred ‘eighty (180) days after the solem- nization of the subsequent mar- riage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, feven though it be bora within theeo) oo co) om sieo bamiad aye af ini tins of the frome eh and _ (A child bor after one tunes Cighty (190). days. following ge Celebration ofthe subsequent no age in considered to nee Go Conceived during such monary ven though ft be born within te Shee hundred days after the ten ination ofthe former mariage ‘That a thing once proved to exist con tines a Long ws fuse wth ehnge ‘That the law has been obeyed ‘That a printed oF published! book, pur porting to be printed or published by Public authority, was s0 printed or pub- lished ‘That a printed or published book, put porting to contain reports of eases a- judged in tribunals of the county where the book i published, contains correct reports of such cases: w o ‘That a trustee oF other person whose duty Ie was to convey real property tos particular person has actually conveyed [eto him or her when such presumption is necessary to perfect the t le of such ‘oF his oF her successor I inter: ‘That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish In the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or con Aageation, and it is not shown who died fs and there are no particular tircumstanees from whieh it ean be in- the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the fo ing rales IC both were under the age of Mf teen years, the older Is deemed to have survived: If both were above the age of sixty, the younger is deemed to hhave survived: If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former Is ‘deemed to have survived:1SeD RULES ON EVIDENCE If both be over fifteen and sixty, and the sex be differ male is deemed to have s if the sex be the same, and under ent, the Urvived, the older, If one be under fifteen oF ove, sixty, and the other between thors ages, the latter is deemed to have survived; (ki) 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. (3a) These are all self-explanatory. Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegiti- macy. — There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hun dred days following the dissolution of the mar- riage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his or her allegation. (48) Cases os Note further, that the word used in the rule is “after” In the Estate of Rogelio G. Ong vs. minor Joanne Rodjin io, represented by her mother and guardian, Jinky C. Dias, Gn No. 171713, December 17, 2007, said’ that filation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate patra Favalso ro secure a legal right associated with paternity, such ‘satzenship, support (as inthe present case), or inheritance. ‘The burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges thatthe putative father is the biological father of the child There are four significant procedural aspects of a uaditional yaternity action which parties have to face: a prima facie case, iimative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical semblance between the putative father and child. The High ut sai: A child born to a husband and wife during a valid ‘marriage is presumed legitimate. As a guaranty in fa vor ofthe child and to protect his status of legitimacy, Asticle 167 of the Family Code provides: Atticle 167. The children shall be considered le gitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress, The law requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy. We explained the 13ee of ne ee oe fxn Greta dedarton hte sae bayou foe ie bad panes of natu juss eg pose te of the moter The pee Froude onthe poly to pote ean ‘ig om te odum ot esemacy, “presumption of leptimacy ofthe cil, howe, itor condunve snd comequety, ‘nay eee thrown by evence fo the comvary Hence at tbe New Cl Cade provides a Ai 255. Chldren bor afer one hun ant ‘ity dap lowing the celebration of heat {tvs and eer e honed dae loa iin tpn te oe ae ‘Again this presumption o evidence shall be aie ed her cha that of hepsi possi of sar ving access oh wife within the foe ‘ale and even dye ote thre hind wk rede he ih of heed ‘This psa impossible may be eause: 1) Byte impotence of he husband 2) By the act that husband and wife wee st Seputly insu wy that acess Was NP she 3) By he seus ns ofthe sand The relevant provisions of the Family Code nde flows AKT. 172, The fai of gia ein ices (0) ‘The record of tit pein hl gs rereca fal judgmen @)_ An admin of eine lation ia pe Sed ty he pres concern nen 2a4 In the absence ofthe foresoing evidence, te le ‘hima ladon sal be poe (The open and conouous poseson of he 2 fey, ter mens slowed by he Rls of Aegimaceftion be sme nap Ad he ‘me tence legions chides (tons See $._Presumptions i ye and ‘eedings, — In ll civil actions and proceedings at atherwise provided for oF pr imposes on the wh the burden ard_with evidence to rebut ot mest the ton. ‘ym stad he en ar Oe Ooos Revaeo RULES ON EvoeNce ea iin re a st presumption. * athe Mew nin ese In Maburgs ve. Ppe aaa ly 77,208 the High Cur ay SM conn nic prt ag ws nk Se Selina gos aoa wh ere Sead ena ti ate of podaay ede fo ema te bueno prong he ee a ff he cme a te burden of persion does nox shag ‘remains throughout the trial upon the prosecution. ed 1C_presumptions are inconsistent, the pr sumpiion that is founded upon weightier oe side i apply. If, cate only stl aea i concie Note, tha if wo presumptions are attendant toa yar ‘ular ese, the weightier considerations of policy sill ppy. However, Ifthe considerations of policy are eqtal nether of them shall apply 6. Presumption against _an_accused in ‘criminal cases. — If a presumed fact that estab: lishes gull isan element of the offer charged, of negates a defense, the existence of the baste fact must nd doubt and the presumed fact follows fro basic fact Beyond reasonable doubt. (a) Neves wo Gases a RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES fection 1. Examination ta he done in open court The examination of witnesses presented in a tial or hearing shall be done in open court, and tnder oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, o the question calls for a ferent mode of answer, the answers of the imess shall be given orally. (1) Note, that Section 1 of Rule 139 of the Rules requires dat in determining the superior weight of evidence on the sesinolved, the cour, aside from the othe factors therein unerated, may consider the “witness manner of esting te ean only be done ifthe witness aves his testimony ‘ally im open cour.” fs tal judge prepares his opinion analy after the coneusion ofthe ta with the ev ese and his impressions of Ue witnesses fresh in his mind {Ss bvioue thar is much more Ukely 10 ceck @ comet tu thn if he simply reviews the evidence 0 8 eT