Remedial Law

Criminal and Civil Cases evidence by the the prima facie

amount of evidence evidence against him.
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not required by law, which (Bautista v. Sarmiento,
admissible until such character has been is preponderance of G.R. No. L-45137, 23
impeached. evidence in civil cases. Sept. 1985)
(Supreme Transliner,
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
of character of a person is admissible, proof may be 125356, 21 Nov. 2001)
made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony Never shifts. (Sec. 1,
in the form of an opinion. On cross examination, Rule 131, ROC, as
inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances amended) May shift from one
of conduct. party to the other in
It remains throughout the course of the
In cases in which character or a trait of a character the entire case exactly proceedings,
of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim where the pleadings depending on the
or defense, proof may also be made of specific originally placed it or exigencies of the case.
instances of that person’s conduct. (Sec. 54[c], Rule with the party upon (Sec. 1, Rule 131, ROC,
130, ROC, as amended) (Sec. 54(c), Rule 130, ROC, as whim it is imposed. as amended)
amended) (Republic v. Mupas, G.R.
No. 181892, 08 Sept.
2015)
F. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS Generally determined
(RULE 131) by the developments of
the trial, or by the
provisions of
Generally determined
Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence substantive law or
by the pleadings filed
procedural rules which
by the party.
may relieve the party
BURDEN OF
BURDEN OF PROOF from presenting
EVIDENCE
evidence of the facts
It is the duty of a party It is the duty of a party
alleged.
to present evidence on to present evidence
the facts necessary to sufficient to establish
Test for Determining where the Burden of Proof
establish his or her or rebut a fact in issue
Lies
claim or defense by the to establish prima facie
amount of evidence case. (Sec. 1, Rule 131,
Ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he
required by law. (Sec. 1, ROC, as amended)
offers no evidence competent to show the facts
Rule 131, ROC, as
averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.
amended) Burden of evidence is
Burden of proof or that logical necessity
Q: In a collection case, who has the burden of proof?
“onus probandi” which rests upon a
traditionally refers to party at any particular
A: The party who alleges a fact has the burden of
the obligation of a time during the trial to
proving it. In the course of trial in a civil case, once
party to the litigation create a prima facie
plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor,
to persuade the court case in his favor or to
the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to
that he is entitled to overthrow one created
defendant to controvert plaintiff’s prima facie case,
relief. against him.
otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of
Duty of a party to Duty of the party to go
plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff must establish the
present evidence to forward with the
failure to pay on the part of the defendant, the latter,
establish his claim or evidence to overthrow

666
 Evidence

on the other hand, has to prove their defense that establish a fact in issue. One need not introduce
the obligation was extinguished. evidence to prove the fact for a presumption is
prima facie proof of the fact presumed. (Diesel
In this case, BPI, as plaintiff, had to prove that Construction, Inc v. UPSI Property Holdings, Inc., G.R.
spouses De Leon failed to pay their obligations No. 154937, 24 Mar. 2008)
under the promissory note. The spouses, on the
other hand, had to prove their defense that the Presumption of Law vs. Presumption of Fact
obligation was extinguished by the loss of the
mortgaged vehicle, which was insured. The mere PRESUMPTION OF PRESUMPTION OF
loss of the mortgaged vehicle does not automatically LAW FACT
relieve the spouses De Leon of their obligation. As (PRAESUMPTIONES (PRAESUMPTIONES
provided in the Promissory Note with Chattel JURIS) HOMINIS)
Mortgage, the mortgagor must notify and submit It is a deduction which
proof of loss to the mortgagee. (De Leon v. BPI, G.R. It is a deduction which reason draws from
No. 184565, 20 Nov. 2013) the law expressly the facts proved
directs to be made from without an express
Presumptions particular facts. direction from law to
that effect.
Presumptions are inferences of the existence or A certain inference must
Discretion is vested in
non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted be made whenever the
the tribunal as to
to draw from the proof of other facts. (In the matter facts appear which
drawing the
of the Intestate Estates of Delgado and Rustia, G.R. furnish the basis of the
inference.
No. 175733, 27 Jan. 2006) inference.
Derived wholly and
NOTE: A presumption shifts the burden of going directly from the
forward with the evidence. It imposes on the party Reduced to fixed rules circumstances of the
against whom it is directed the burden of going and forms a part of the particular case by
forward with evidence to meet or rebut the system of jurisprudence means of the common
presumption. (Bautista, 2004) experience of
mankind
In a sense, a presumption is an inference which is Need not be pleaded or
mandatory unless rebutted. proved if the facts on
Has to be pleaded and
which they are based
Presumption vs. Inference proved
are duly averred and
established
PRESUMPTION INFERENCE
It is mandated by law It is a factual conclusion Kinds of Presumptions of Law
and establishes a that can rationally be
legal relation drawn from other facts. 1. Conclusive presumptions (presumptions juris et
between or among (Riano, 2019) de jure); and
the facts. 2. Disputable presumptions (presumptions juris
It is a deduction It is a permissive tantum). (Regalado, 2008)
directed by law. deduction. (Francisco,
1996) Conclusive Presumption

Effect of Presumption A presumption which is irrebuttable and any

evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not
A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists admissible. This presumption is in reality a rule of
may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to substantive law. (Riano, 2019)

667 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Remedial Law
Classes of Conclusive Presumptions
a. Estoppel in pais (Equitable Estoppel) –
Whenever a party has, by his or her own
declaration, act or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular
thing to be 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 (Sec. 2(a), Rule 131, ROC, as amended);
and
b. Estoppel by deed – A party to a property deed
is precluded from asserting, as against another
party to the deed, any right or title in derogation
of the deed, or from denying the truth of any
material fact asserted in the deed
E.g. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title
of his or her landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them (Sec. 2[b], Rule 131, ROC,
as amended) (Sec. 2(b), Rule 131, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: Estoppel may attach even though the
landlord does not have title at the commencement
of the relations. It may inure in favor of the
successor. (Golden Horizon Realty Corporation vs. St
Chuan, G.R. No. 145416, 21 Sept. 2001)
The rule on estoppel against tenants is subject to a
qualification. It does not apply if:
1. The landlord’s title has expired;
2. It has been conveyed to another; or
3. It has been defeated by a title paramount,
subsequent to the commencement of lessor-
lessee relationship.
In other words, if there was a change in the nature
of the title of the landlord during the subsistence of
the lease, then the presumption does not apply.
Otherwise, if the nature of the landlord’s title
remains as it was during the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant, then estoppel lies
against the tenant. (Santos v. NSO, G.R. No. 171129,
06 Apr. 2011)
668
Distinguish Estoppel from Waiver
A waiver is a voluntary and intentional
abandonment or relinquishment of a known right. It
must be supported by an agreement founded upon
a valid consideration.
An equitable estoppel may arise however, in the
absence of any intention on the part of the person
estopped to relinquish or change any existing right,
and it need not be supported by any consideration,
agreement, or legal obligation. (Francisco, 1996)
Disputable Presumption
This refers to a presumption which is satisfactory if
uncontradicted but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence. (Sec. 3, Rule 131, ROC,
as amended)
Disputable Presumptions under Section 3, Rule
131
1. A person is innocent of a crime or wrong;
NOTE: It applies to both civil and criminal
cases. Presumption of innocence of the accused
accompanies him until the rendition of
judgment and disappears after conviction, such
that upon appeal, the appellate court will then
presume the guilt of the accused. The
prosecution’s case must rise and fall on its own
merits and cannot draw strength from the
weakness of the defense. (People v. Mingming,
G.R. No. 174195, 10 Dec. 2008)
2. Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent;
3. Person intends the ordinary consequences of
his or her voluntary act;
4. Person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
GR: All people are sane and normal and moved
by substantially the same motives. When of age
and sane, they must take care of themselves.
Courts operate not because one person has
been defeated or overcome by another but
because that person has been defeated or
overcome illegally. There must be a violation of
the law. (Vales v. Villa, G.R. No. 10028, 16 Dec.
 Evidence
1916)
XPN: When one of the parties is unable to read
or if the contract is in a language not
understood by him, and mistake or fraud is
alleged, the person enforcing the contract must
show that the terms thereof have been fully
explained to the former. (Art. 1332, NCC)
5. Evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
Requisites:
a. The evidence is material;
b. The party had the reasonable opportunity
to produce it; and
c. The evidence is available only to the said
party.
The presumption will NOT be applicable when:
a. Suppression of evidence is not willful;
b. Evidence suppressed or withheld is merely
corroborative or cumulative;
c. Evidence is at the disposal of both parties;
and
d. Suppression is by virtue of an exercise of
privilege.
NOTE: Failure of the prosecution to present a
certain witness and to proffer a plausible
explanation does not amount to willful
suppression of evidence since the prosecutor
has the discretion/prerogative to determine the
witnesses he is going to present. (People v.
Jalbuena, G.R. No. 171163, 04 July 2007)
6. Money paid by one to another was due to the
latter;
7. Thing delivered by one to another belonged to
the latter;
8. Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid;
9. Prior rents or installments had been paid when
a receipt for the later ones is produced;
10. A person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker
and doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
669
which a person possesses or exercises acts of
ownership over, are owned by him or her;
NOTE: In order to raise the presumption, the
following must be proved:
a. That a crime was committed;
b. That it was committed recently;
c. That the stolen property was found in the
possession of the defendant; and
d. That the defendant is unable to explain his
possession satisfactorily. (U.S. v. Espia 16,
G.R. No. L-5813, 27 Aug. 1910)
11. A person in possession of an order on himself or
herself for the payment of the money, or the
delivery of anything, has paid the money or
delivered the thing accordingly;
12. Person acting in public office was regularly
appointed or elected to it;
Ratio: It would cause great inconvenience if in
the first instance strict proof were required of
appointment or election to office in all cases
where it might be collaterally in issue.
However, the presumption of a regular
appointment does not apply to a public officer
seeking to recover salary attached to the office,
or the benefits of a pension system.
13. Official duty has been regularly performed;
NOTE: All things are presumed to have been
done regularly and with due formality until the
contrary is proved. This presumption extends
to persons who have been appointed pursuant
to a local or special statute to act in quasi-public
or quasi-official capacities and to professionals
like lawyers and surgeons.
GR: Presumption applies to both civil as well as
criminal cases.
XPNs:
a. Petition for writ of amparo – presumption
may not be invoked by the respondent
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW