Burden of Proof, Evidence, and Presumptions

1.

Under the law, the following are the two kinds of presumption:

(1) Conclusive Presumption; and

(2) Disputable presumption.

Conclusive presumption are presumptions that are conclusive because the same
are declared such under the law or the Rules. These presumptions may not be
overturned by evidence, regardless of how strong the evidence is.

Disputable presumption are presumptions that may be overturned by contrary

evidence. These presumptions are disputable due to the recognition of the variability of
human behavior.

2.

Well-settled in law that estoppel in pais is a principle that arises whenever a

party, by its own act or omission, or declaration, has deliberately and intentionally led
another to believe a particular thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot be
allowed to falsify it in any litigation which arises from such act or omission or
declaration.

To illustrate, in a complaint for cancellation of a mortgage, the party who

presented to the Court a mortgage in which the receipt of an amount was
acknowledged, the party is deemed to have represented to the court that the mortgage
was what it purported to be, thereby precluding the party from presenting that the
mortgage was without consideration.
 On the other hand, estoppel against tenant states that a tenant is not permitted to
deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord
and tenant between them.

As an illustration, A who pays rent, by reason of a lease agreement with B

involving a land owned by B, is an acknowledgment of B’s ownership of the land. A is
not permitted to claim title over the same land by reason of estoppel against tenant.

3.

The Supreme Court has held that a foreign judgment, if pleaded and proved, is
presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it was rendered until a
contrary showing want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear
mistake of law or fact. The burden of proof in overcoming this presumption lies with the
party attacking the foreign judgment. However, in order for the foreign judgment to enjoy
the presumptive evidentiary value, the same should first be pleaded and proved as
prescribed under the Rules.

As to the rules on presumption in case of forgery, the Supreme Court has held
that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing
evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party who alleges forgery.

As to judicial confessions, the Supreme Court has held that confessions are
given a high order because of the presumption that no person of normal mind would
knowingly and deliberately confess if not prompted by conscience and truth.

As to conjugal property, under the Civil Code, all property of the marriage is
presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it is proven that such properties
pertain to the husband or wife exclusively.
4.
 5.

Under the law, an electronic signature, once authenticated as prescribed under

the rules, is presumed that:

(a) the electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates;

(b) the electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of
authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to
indicate such person's consent to the transaction embodied therein; and

(c) the methods or processes utilized to affix or verity the electronic signature
operated without error or fault.

Under the law, the following are the factors to be considered in relation to
assessing the evidential weight of electronic evidence are: (1) the reliability of the
manner in which it was granted, stored or communicated; (2) the reliability of the
manner in which its originator was identified; (3) the integrity of the information and
communication; (4) the familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with
the communication and information system; (5) nature and quality of the information that
went into the communication and information system; (6) and other relevant factors.

As to the refutable presumption of paternity in DNA Testing, it is well-settled that

DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of
non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9 percent, the
results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of
the Probability of Paternity is 99.9 percent or higher, there shall be a disputable
presumption of paternity.

6.
 7.
Under the law, burden of proof ‘ whereas burden of evidence refers to the duty
of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence against
him.

8.

Under the law, this doctrine is applied when the evidence of the parties are
evenly balanced and there arises a question on which side the evidence preponderates.
In such case, by applying the equipoise rule, where the burden of proof lies with the
plaintiff and the evidence does not weigh in his favor, the court should render a verdict
in favor of the defendant. In criminal case, by applying the equiponderance doctrine,
where the evidence is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence
shall prevail, thereby rendering a judgment in favor of the accused.

9.

Viloria v. Continental Airlines, G.R No. 188288, January 16, 2012;

The doctrine of estoppel. In this case, CAI never refuted that it gave Holiday
Travel the power and authority to conclude contracts of carriage on its behalf;
thereby barring CA from making such denial.

Presumption that a person is innocent of crime or wrong. The Court held that
fraud id never lightly inferred. It cannot be proved by mere speculations and
conjectures since private transactions are presumed to have been fair and
regular.

Agency is never presumed. The Court held that the party alleging that agency
exists has the burden of proof in establishing that agency exists since agency is
never presumed.
Santos v. Dichoso (Adm. Case No. 1825, 84 SCRA 622);
An attorney is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his
oath. Hence, he is presumed innocent of the charges against him until the
contrary is proved.

In disbarment proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proof in

establishing, by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof, that the acts
complained of constitute malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of the
lawyer’s oath.

Garcia v. Garcia-Recio, G.R No. 138322, October 2, 2001.

A foreign judgment, before it is given presumptive evidentiary value, must first be

presented and admitted in evidence. The Rules of Court provides for the manner
in which a foreign judgment must be pleaded and proved before the court may
take judicial notice of the same. To wit: a writing or document may be proven as
a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication
or (2) a copy thereof attested 33 by the officer having legal custody of the
document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a)
accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer
in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing
necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. In this case, the court is not
persuaded with the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has the
burden to prove the Australian divorce law because she is the party challenging
the validity of a foreign judgment. It held that since the respondent is the party
that raised the divorce decree as a defense, the burden of proof lies with the
respondent.
 The foreign divorce decree does not raise a disputable presumption as to the
party’s civil status since no proof has been presented on the legal effects of the
foreign divorce decree.

Under the Family Code, a duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima
facie evidence of legal capacity to marry for an alien applying for a marriage
license.

People v. Concepcion, G.R No. 199219, April 3, 2013

Integrity of evidence; presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by

public officers. The Supreme Court held that the integrity of evidence is
presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will
or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The party who alleges that
the evidence have been tampered with has the burden of proof in order to
overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public
officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties.

10.

No. Forgery cannot be presumed.

It is well-established in jurisprudence that forgery cannot be presumed. The

Supreme Court has held that whoever alleges forgery has the burden of proving, by
clear and convincing evidence, the same.