WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

JUDICIAL NOTICE ,JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS & PRSUMPTIONS

 When evidence is required; when not required
 Where no factual issue exits.
 By agreement of the parties.
 Matters of judicial notice and matters judicially admitted. (Sec 1 and 4
Rule 129)
 Presumption: law or rule presumes the truth of a fact
 Breach of contract of carriage- evidence of negligence not needed
Art.1756 CC: death or injuries of passenger, presumption of negligence
 Constitutional presumption of innocence
 What are the facts that need not be proved?

 Those which the courts may take judicial notice

(Rule 129);
 Those that are judicially admitted (Rule 129);
 Those that are conclusively presumed (Rule 131);
and
 Those that are disputably presumed but
uncontradicted (Rule 131).
 JUDICIAL NOTICE
 the cognizance of certain facts which judges may
properly take and act upon without proof because
they are supposed to be known to them.
 What is known need not be proved
 Abbreviate litigation but it should not be used to
deprive an adverse party of the opportunity to prove
a disputed fact.
WHEN MANDATORY;
DISCRETIONARY
Mandatory if the fact sought to be proved are:
1. Existence and territorial extent of States;
2. Political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality;
3. Law of nations;
4. Laws of nature
5. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
6. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
7. Official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
National Government of the Philippines
8. Measure of time; and 9. Geographical divisions
Q: What are the rules with regard to judicial notice of
ordinances?
A: 1. MTCs are required to take judicial notice of the
ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they sit.
2. RTCs must take judicial notice only: a. When expressly
authorized to do so by statute; or b. In case on appeal before
them and wherein the inferior court took judicial notice of an
ordinance involved in the same case.
3. Appellate courts may also take judicial notice of ordinances
not only because the lower courts took judicial notice thereof
but because these are facts capable of unquestionable
demonstration.
Q: Can court take judicial notice on amnesty and pardon of
the accused?

Q:Court’s own acts and records?

A: Yes. Provided same case.

Q: What is the rule on judicial notice of records of another

case previously tried?
A: GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of
the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are
pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases
may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge.
(Calamba Steel Center, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 151857, Apr. 28, 2005)

XPNS: 1. When in the absence of any objection, with the knowledge of

the opposing party, the contents of said other cases are clearly referred to
by title and number in a pending action and adopted or read into the
record of the latter; 2. When the original record of the other case or any
part of it is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court’s discretion
upon the request, or with the consent, of the parties, and admitted as part
of the record of the pending case. (Jumamil v. Cafe, G.R. No. 144570,
Sept. 21, 2005)
WHEN DISCRETIONARY
1. Public knowledge
 The matter must be one of common and general knowledge
2. Capable of unquestionable demonstration
 It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
uncertain;
 It must be one which is not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is
either: a. Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court; or b. Capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting
to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable
3. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions
Q: When is a matter considered “common knowledge”?
A: They are those matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in
the course of ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which
are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and
unquestioned demonstration.
EXAMPLES:
 Bank Practice
 Business transaction made through teleconferencing
 Rape is not always nor necessarily committed in isolated or secluded
place…lust respect no time and place.
 Persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
WHAT IS JUDICIAL ADMISSION
An admission, oral or written, made by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that
the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.(Sec. 4,
Rule 129).
ELEMENTS:
1. Made by a party to the case or his counsel;
2. Made in the course of the proceedings in the same case; and
3. It can be oral or written admission.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Those made in the course of the proceeding in Those made out of court or in a judicial
the same case proceeding other than the one under
consideration

Do not require proof and may be contradicted Regarded as evidence and must be offered as
only by showing that it was made through such, otherwise the court will not consider it in
palpable mistake or that no such admission deciding the case.
was made.

need not be offered in evidence since it is not Requires formal offer for it to be considered
evidence. It is superior to evidence and shall
be considered by the court as established.

Conclusive upon the admitter Rebuttable

Admissible even if self serving Not admissible if self serving

Subject to cross examination Not subject to cross examination
Q: When are judicial admissions made?
A: It may be made by the party himself or by his
counsel:
1. In the pleadings filed by the parties;
2. In the course of the trial either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations, including depositions,
written interrogatories and requests for admissions,
motions, complaint, answers; or
3. In other stages of the judicial proceedings, as in pre-
trial.
Q: Admissions made during a pre-trial in a civil case considered as
judicial admissions?
A: Yes. Admissions made in the pre-trial are deemed judicial
admissions because they are made in the course of the
proceedings of the case.
Q: In Criminal Cases?
A: GR. Admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of a
criminal case is not necessarily admissible against him.
XPN: reduced in writing, and signed by the accused and
counsel.
 EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
1. A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later
challenge that fact, as judicial admissions constitute
waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed
with;
2. No evidence is needed to prove a judicial admission
and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to
have been made made through palpable mistake or
that the imputed admission was not, in fact,
made.
 REMEDY
Q: How can judicial admission be contradicted?
A: It may be contradicted by showing:
1. That it was made through palpable mistake;
2. That the imputed admission was not in fact made (Sec. 4); or
3. To prevent manifest injustice (e.g. pre-trial in civil cases,
Sec. 7, Rule 18).
PRESUMPTION
Q: What is presumption?
A: It 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 of the existence or non-existence of a fact which
courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.
Note: A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the
evidence. It imposes on the party against whom it is directed the
burden of going forward with evidence to meet or rebut the
presumption.
PRESUMPTION OF LAW (Praesumptiones Juris) PRESUMPTION OF FACT (Praesumptiones
Hominis)

It is a deduction which the law expressly directs to be It is a deduction which reason draws from the facts
made from particular facts proved without an express direction from law to that
effect.

A certain inference must be made whenever the facts Discretion is vested in the tribunal as to drawing the
appear which furnish the basis of the inference inference

Reduced to fixed rules and form a part of the system of Derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of
jurisprudence the particular case by means of the common experience
of mankind

Need not be pleaded or proved if the facts on which Has to be pleaded and proved
they are based are duly averred and established
Q: What are the kinds of presumptions of law?
A: 1. Conclusive presumptions (presumptions juris et de jure)
2. Disputable presumptions (presumptions juris tantum)

Q: What is a conclusive presumption?

A: Conclusive presumptions are those which are not
permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary.
Q: What are the classes of conclusive presumptions?
A: 1. Estoppel in pais – Whenever a party has, by his 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.
2. 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 landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord
and tenant between them, may attach even though the landlord does not
have title at the commencement of the relations.
Q: What are disputable presumptions?
A: Those which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence. (Sec. 3, Rule 131)
Q: What are the disputable presumptions under Section 3 of Rule 130?
A: 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
judgement and disappears after conviction, such that upon appeal, the
appellate court will then presume the guilt of the accused.
2. Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent.
3. Person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act.
4. Person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Note: All people are sane
and normal and moved by substantially the same motives. When of age
and sane, they must take care of themselves.
5. Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
The requisites for the presumption to apply are:
a. The evidence is material;
b. The party had the 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.
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
which a person possesses or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned
by him.
Note: Presumption of possession of stolen goods arises once the
prosecution is able to prove that a certain object has been unlawfully
taken, and that the accused is in possession of the object unlawfully
taken. Presumption of innocence disappears and presumption of guilt
takes place.
11. 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.
12. Person acting in public office was regularly appointed or elected to it.
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.
XPN: Petition for writ of amparo – presumption may not be invoked by
the respondent public officer or employee
14. A court or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or
elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.
 15. All the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the
court and passed upon by it; all matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration were laid before arbitrators and passed upon by
them.
16. Private transactions have been fair and regular. Note: Presumption
that all men act fairly, honestly and in good faith, and that an individual
intends to do right rather than wrong and intends to do only what he has
the right to do.
17. Ordinary course of business has been followed. Note: Persons
engaged in a given trade or business are presumed to be acquainted with
the general customs, usages and other facts necessarily incident to the
proper conduct of the business.
18. There was a sufficient consideration for a contract.
19. Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient
consideration.
20. An endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the
instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated.
21. A writing is truly dated.
22. Letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of
the mail. Note: For this presumption to arise, it must be proved that the
letter was properly addressed with postage pre-paid and that it was
actually mailed.
23. Absentee of 7 years, it being not known whether or not he is still
alive, is considered dead for all purposes except for succession.
 opening his succession, an absence of 10 years is required;
 disappeared after the age of 75, absence of only 5 years is sufficient.
 dead for all purposes including the division of estate among the heirs: 4 years
a. Person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing,
who has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
b. Member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been
missing for 4 years;
c. Person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose
existence has not been known for 4 years;
d. If a married person has been absent for 4 consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent
spouse is already dead;
2 years in case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the
circumstances hereinabove provided.
24. Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable
to the law or fact.
25. Things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
habits of life.
26. Persons acting as co-partners have entered into a contract of co-partnership.
27. A man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage.
28. 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.
29. In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry
each other and who have acquired 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
30. If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within
300 hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall
govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
Presumptions of paternity:
a. A child born before 180 days after the subsequent marriage is conceived during
the former marriage, provided it is born within 300 days after the termination of
the former marriage.
b. A child born after 180 days following the subsequent marriage is considered to
have been conceived during the subsequent marriage, even though it be born
within the 300 days after the termination of the former marriage.
Note: There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy when a child is born
after 300 days following dissolution of marriage or the separation of the spouses.
Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation
(Sec. 4).
 31. A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that
nature.
32. The law has been obeyed.
33. A printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public
authority, was so printed or published.
34. A printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in
tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such
cases.
35. 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.
36. Except for purposes of succession, when 2 persons perish in the same calamity,
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 age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
First Person Second Person Presumed To Have Survived
< 15 yrs old < 15 yrs old older
> 60 yrs old > 60 yrs old younger
< 15 > 60 yrs old < 15
>15 and < 60 male >15 and < 60 female The male
>15 and < 60 female >15 and < 60 female The older
< 15 or > 60 15-60 The one between those ages
Presumption against an accused in criminal
cases. ( New Provision Sec 6. Rule 131)

 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.