May 17, 2022

outline

RULE 131
BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS

Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence

Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence. – Burden of proof is the duty of a party
to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense
by the amount of evidence required by law. Burden of proof never shifts.
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish
or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. Burden of evidence may shift from
one party to the other in the course of the proceedings, depending on the exigencies of
the case. (1a)

• Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law. (Sec. 1, Rule 131)
• “amount of evidence required by law” (Quantum of Proof)
• “Ei Uncimbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat” = The burden of proof lies upon him
who affirms, not he who denies.
• “The burden of proof lies on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on
either side.” (1964 Rules on Evidence)

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. (Aznar Brothers Realty Co. vs. Aying, G.R. No. 144773, May 16,
2005)

• “Burden of proof never shifts.” (S1,R131)

• Burden of evidence (“Burden of Production”; “Burden of Going Forward” with evidence)
Burden of evidence is the duty resting upon a party, by means of evidence,
to create or meet a prima facie case.

(S1,R131): Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence

sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.

• Prima facie evidence is that which sufficiently establishes a party’s evidence to justify
a favorable judgment.

• Distinguish “Burden of Proof” from “Burden of Evidence” (Bar Question)

• Negative averment as element of a crime:

General Rule; Exception. (People vs. Manalo, February 23, 1994)

1
 Presumptions

• Review: What need not be proved?

• A presumption is an inference as to the existence or non-existence of a fact which
courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts. A presumption is an
assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed
from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.
It is an inference which common sense, enlightened by human knowledge and
experience, draws from the connection, relation, and coincidence of facts and
circumstances with each other.

• Is presumption evidence?
• 2 Types of Presumption: 1. Presumption of Facts (Presumption Hominis) and 2.
Presumption of Law (Presumption Juris) [Martin vs. CA (January 30,
1992)]

• Distinguish a Presumption of Fact from a Presumption of Law

• 2 Types of Presumption of Law: Conclusive (Presumption Juris et de Jure) and

Disputable (Presumption Juris Tantum)

• Conclusive Presumptions:

Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The following are instances of conclusive

presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act
upon such belief, he or she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act
or omission, be permitted to falsify it; and

(b) 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. (2a)

• Disputable Presumptions under Rule 131:

o Section 3(a) – fundamental presumption of innocence
o Section 3(e) – “adverse presumption of suppression of evidence”
Requisites:
1. The suppression is willful.
2. The suppression is not in the exercise of a privilege.
3. The evidence suppressed is not merely corroborative or
cumulative.
4. The evidence is at the disposal only of the suppressing party.

• Presumption of Fabrication of Evidence

o Section 3(h) - “Evidence of an obligation is delivered to the debtor.”

2
o Section 3(j)

a. 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;
Requisites:

1. The crime of theft or robbery was committed;

2. That it was committed recently;
3. That the property which is the object of the crime was found in the possession of
the accused;
4. That the accused is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily.

b. that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are
owned by him or her;

o Section 3(l)(m): Presumption of Regularity of Official Acts

Rationale: People vs. de Guzman (February 9, 1994)

o Section 3(n)(o): Presumption of Regularity of Judicial Acts

o Section 3(p): Presumption of Regularity of Private Transactions

o Section 3(w): Presumption of Death

• When is a person presumed dead?

a. under ordinary circumstances – at the end of the period
b. under extraordinary circumstances – at the time of
disappearance

o Section 3(bb) vs. (cc)

o Section 3(ee): Presumption of Continuity of Existence

Other presumption related to (ee):

• Presumption of continuity of life;
• Presumption of continuity of mental condition;
• Presumption of continuity of physical condition;
• Presumption of continuity of possession.

o Section 3(jj): Presumption on Survivorship

• “except for purposes of succession”

• Summary and examples on Paragraph (jj):

RULE EXAMPLE PRESUMPTION EFFECT

If both are under A is 14, B is 12 The older is B is deemed to have
15 deemed to have died ahead of A.
survived.

3
 If both are over A is 68, B is 61 The younger is A is deemed to
60 deemed to have have died ahead of
survived. B.
If one is under 15 A is 14, B is 62 The younger is B is deemed to have
and the other is deemed to have died ahead of A.
over 60 survived.
If both be over 15 A, male, is 59. B, The male is deemed B is deemed to have
and under 60 female, is 21 to have survived. died ahead of A.
If both be over 15 A, female, is 59. B, The older is deemed B is deemed to have
and under 60 of female, is 25 to have survived. died ahead of A.
the same gender
If one be under A is 61, B is 59 The “in-betweener” A is deemed to have
15 or older than is deemed to have died ahead of B.
60 and the other survived.
between those
ages

o Section 3(kk): Presumption of Simultaneous Death

• Distinguish: Paragraph (jj) Presumption of Survivorship vs.
Paragraph (kk), Presumption of Simultaneous Death

• Section 4

Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. – There is no presumption

of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred [(300)] days following the
dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the
legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his or her allegation.

• Other presumptions

• Important Points on Presumptions

• New Provisions under Rule 131

o Presumptions in Civil Cases:

Section 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. – In all civil actions and
proceedings not otherwise provided for by the law or these Rules, a
presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of
going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.

If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon

weightier considerations of policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of
equal weight, neither presumption applies. (n)

- Inconsistent Presumptions
Pp. vs. Godoy (December 6, 1995)
4
 - Two situations under Section 5:

1. There are two presumptions that cannot be applied together in one case
because they are inconsistent;
Rule: “the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of
policy shall apply.”

2. if considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither presumption

applies.

o Presumptions in Criminal Cases:

Section 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases. – If a

presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of the offense
charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from
the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. (n)

- Cause and effect: Basic fact and the presumed fact