RULE 131

Burden of Proof and Presumptions

“Section 1. Burden of proof. – Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence
out on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law.”

BURDEN OF EVIDENCE is defined by American jurisprudence as the duty resting upon a party, by
means of evidence to create or meet a prima facie case.

Q: Distinguish “Burden of Proof” from “Burden of Evidence”. (Bar Question)

A: Burden of Proof does not shift during the course of the trial. It remains with the party upon whom
the law cast it at the beginning of the trial. On the other hand, Burden of Evidence shifts or passes
from side to side as the trial progresses and evidence is produced.

ILLUSTRATION:

BURDEN OF PROOF:

Q: In criminal cases, who has the burden of proof, the prosecution or defense?

A: The burden of proof rest on the prosecution because of the presumption of innocence. The
prosecution has the burden from beginning to end, to show the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The burden of proof does not shift.

BURDEN OF EVIDENCE:

This has something to do with the order of trial.

Q: When trial in a criminal case starts, who present evidence first?

A: The duty of presenting evidence initially belongs to the prosecution. The prosecution has the
burden of presenting evidence to prove prima facie the guilt of the accused.

Q: After the prosecution has rested and has proven the crime, under the order of trial, who presents
evidence next?

A: It is now the turn of the accused to present evidence. The duty of presenting evidence is shifted to
the accused after the prosecution has rested.

Q: After the presentation of evidence by the accused, under the order trial, what follows next?

A: Under the order of trial, the prosecution can present rebuttal evidence. In other words, the burden
of evidence is shifted back to the prosecution to rebut what the accused has proven. After the
rebuttal of evidence, the accused can present evidence to rebut the rebuttal evidence of the
prosecution.
 The presentation of evidence in a trial shift from one party to another, from prosecution to
defense. That is what burden of evidence means. It shifts from side to side, but the Burden of Proof
always remains with the prosecution, or plaintiff in a civil case.

That is why American jurisprudence has another term for burden of proof, the “Risk of Non-
persuasion”; burden of evidence is also known as the “Duty of Going Forward” with evidence.

CASE: People vs. Manalo, 230 SCRA 309

FACTS: This is an appeal from the decision of RTC of Pasig convicting Angelita Manalo for
violation of the Dangerous Act.

On 24 January 1992, a team of the Dangerous Drug Enforcement Division conducted

an entrapment, with Police Officer Corpuz acting as poseur-buyer. The transaction yielded
from the accused a deck of “shabu”, a sealed plastic bag containing an undetermined amount
of suspected marijuana leaves, an improvised glass tooter containing suspected “shabu”
residue, and a P100 marked bill used by the police officers in the entrapment operation.

Accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for selling “shabu” without
authority. On appeal, accused-appellant in her assignment of errors, contend that there was
no showing by the prosecution that she had no license or authority to sell “shabu” which is a
regulated drug. Citing the case of People vs. Pajenado, accused - appellant maintains that
since the absence of a license or authority is an essential ingredient of the crime, proof of
such negative allegation should have been presented by the prosecution.

ISSUE: Who has the burden of proof in proving a negative allegation?

HOLDING: The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative

allegation, or a negative averment is an essential element of a crime, the prosecution has the
burden to prove the charge. However, this rule admits of exceptions.

Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts are
immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the unos probandi rests upon him. Stated
otherwise, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support
negative averment the truth which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which,
if untrue, could readily be disproved by the production of documents or other evidence within
the defendant ‘s knowledge or control.

For example, where a charge is made that a defendant carried on a certain business without a license
(as in the case at bar, where the accused is charged with the sale of regulated drug without
authority), the fact that he has a license is a matter which is peculiarly within his knowledge and he
must establish that fact or suffer conviction.
Even in the case if Pajenado, this court categorically ruled that although the prosecution has the
burden of proving a negative averment which is an essential element of a crime, the prosecution, in
view of the difficulty of proving a negative allegation, “need only establish a prima facie case from the
best evidence obtainable”. In fact, Pajenado was acquitted of the charge of illegal possession of
firearm, for the court found that, in said case, the prosecution was not able to establish even a prima
facie case upon which to hold him guilty of the crime charged.

We proceed to PRESUMPTIONS

Q: What need not be proved?

A: There are 3 facts which need not be proved:

(1) Judicial Notice; 2) Admissions; 3) Presumptions

Q: What is a presumptions?

A: A presumption is an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known arising from its
usual connection with other which is known.

In a Philippine case, a presumption is defined as a conjecture based on past experience as to what

course human affairs ordinarily take.

Presumption of Facts (Presumption Hominis)

Presumption

Presumption of Law (Presumption Juris)

Q: Distinguish a Presumption of Fact from Presumption of Law.

A: A Presumption of Fact (Presumption Hominis) is an inference which leaves the trial court at liberty
to infer certain conclusions from a certain set of circumstances. This is actually not a mandatory
deduction. The court is at liberty to lay its inference. It stands more on logic or human experience.

A Presumption of Law (Presumption Juris) is a presumption which the law allows to be drawn from
ascertained state of facts. The law lays down the presumptions. This is mandatory. The court cannot
disregard such presumptions.

The main difference between that 2 is that a Presumption of Fact is no more than a permissible
deduction which the law allows. It is allowed, but the law does not require it. A presumption of Law is
a mandatory deduction which the law commands to be done.

There are 2 types of Presumption of Law:

Conclusive (Presumption Juris et de Jure)

Presumption of Law
 Disputable (Presumption Juris Tantum)

(1) Conclusive Presumption (Presumption Juris et Jure)

(2) Disputable Presumptions (Presumption Juris Tantum)

Conclusive Presumptions are presumptions which the law does not allow to be contradicted. They are
unrebuttable and admit of no proof to the contrary. In effect, Conclusive Presumptions belong to the
branch of the rule of substantive law because they are final.

What are Conclusive Presumptions?

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

a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately
led another to believe a particular thing 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;
b) 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.”

Rule 131, Sec.2(a) lays down the Doctrine of Estoppel. The principle of estoppel is a conclusive
presumption. When a person causes another to believe that something is true, and the latter is
relying upon it and acts upon such belief, the former cannot later go on against his own
representation.

The second type is self-explanatory.

A enters into a contract of tenancy with B. A is the tenant; he will sell the land will pay B an amount.
That is an admission on the part of A, that B is the owner and A is the landlord. Then later on, A
denies B’s ownership. That is estoppel. He cannot be a tenant and at the same time deny title of the
ownership of the person whose land he is filling.

The same rule holds true in lease contracts. He cannot enter into a lease contract with somebody
whose ownership he recognizes and later denies it. He is estoppel.

These are the 2 presumptions laid down in the Rules.

Under the old Rules, there was a third type of presumption: the QUASI-CONCLUSIVE. This was
taken from the Civil Code. An example of this is the presumption on legitimacy.

For example: A person born within so many days from the time of the marriage is presumed to be
legitimate. This, the law allows to be disputed by evidence presented. But the provision in the Civil
Code were changed. The Family Code change the language of the law. The so-called Quasi-
Conclusive Presumptions on Legitimacy for children born during the marriage, were eliminated or
removed.

Disputable Presumptions are the majority. 99% of presumptions are disputable, or may be
contradicted or overcome by evidence. Meaning, they can be rebutted. One can present evidence to
prove that they are actually not true.
For example, the presentation of innocence. That is not conclusive. Otherwise, every person who is
accused will be acquitted, because everybody will be presumed innocent. And their guilt cannot be
proven.

Disputable Presumption can be found in the Civil Code, Negoatiable Instruments Law, Criminal, Law
on Succession, etc.

“Section 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted ,

but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;”

This is the fundamental presumption of innocence.

Q: Is the presumption of innocence applicable only in criminal case?

A: NO. When the law says: “xxx innocent of crime or wrong”, the “wrong” could be a cause of action
in a civil case. According to the SC, the presumption of innocence is a very broad presumption which
carries with it automatically other presumption. That is why it is called a “mother” presumption.
These are many other presumption arising from it, such as, that good faith is always presumed, as
well as honesty and integrity. There is no such a thing as presumption of bad faith. There are also
presumption of morality and decency. There is no presumption of immortality; everybody is presumed
to moral decent. As a consequence, there are presumptions of marriage, the legitimacy of children,
and the presumption of chastity of every woman. Included here is also the presumption that all
contracts are legal.

“(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;”

This is also a very broad presumption. Man is a rational being, has intelligence and therefore knows
what is right from wrong. This presumption, according, to the SC, includes the presumption of
knowledge of law. Therefore, when one commits a crime, an unlawful act, the presumption is that it
was done intentionally. Remember that in Criminal Law, criminal intent is presumed from the
commission of the criminal act.

Q: Why is it that criminal intent is presumed when one commits a felony?

A: Because of the presumption that “xxx unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent”.

This presumption includes the presumption of malice.

“(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;”

This is also part of Criminal Law. One intends the consequences of his actions. That is why in Criminal
Law, there is praeter intentionem. A person is criminally liable even if the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended. These things are considered as risks.

” (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;”

A person is presumed to act with the diligence of a good father of a family. One is presumed to take
ordinary care of his own concerns, his own responsibilities. There is no presumption of
irresponsibility. Things entrusted to a person must be kept by him and he must exercise the due
diligence of a good father of a family in doing so. This is the presumption.

“ (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;”

This is the adverse presumption which arises from suppression of evidence.

For example, in a case against X, there are 2 contending versions of the facts – X’s version and other
party’s. Now, X has in his possession a document which will prove who is telling the truth. So, the
document is material to the case.

In the course of the trial, X did not present the document in evidence. He kept it.

Q: Will this work against X?

A: YES. X is suppressing evidence. So, X’s version will not be honored by the court, because if X’s
version were really correct he would have had the evidence to show it; but he did not. So the
presumption is: if X presented the evidence, it would have worked against his opponent. Therefore,
there is a presumption that a person suppresses-evidence because the evidence is against him. That
is why he decided to hide it. This is especially important in criminal cases.

These are some requisites that must be proved in order to establish this presumption:

(1) The suppression is willful. Deliberate.

It is not that you failed to present it because of your negligence and carelessness.
(2) The suppression is not in the exercise of a privilege.

For example: A subpoenas B’s lawyer to produce in court all the document that are in his possession.
B’s lawyer refuses to do so because he is invoking his client’s right against self-incrimination or he is
invoking the lawyer-client privileged communication. B is barring his lawyer from testing. So in this
sense, B is suppressing evidence from A, and A raises such a presumption against B.

Q: Is the presumption raised by A proper?

A: NO. There is no suppression of evidence here because the refusal to produce the documents is
done in the exercise of a privilege. This section will not apply. If a person refuses to produce
documents because he is invoking his right against self-incrimination, this will not work against him. A
right cannot, at the same time, be the source of a presumption against the same person who has
such a right. If there is no privilege, there is no adverse presumption.

(3) The evidence suppressed is not merely corroborative or cumulative.

Meaning, the evidence will support what is there on record. Generally, this applies when the evidence
suppressed will prove something on the first time. If it is intended to support what is already
presented are merely additional evidence. And it is for the offeror of the evidence to determine
whether it should be presented or not in court. This should not work against him.

This has happened for several times in buy-bust operation. For example, there is a team of NARCOM
agents. One member poses as the buyer; the other 2 hide. When the poseur-buyer gives the signal,
the other 2 members of the team come out and arrest the drug pusher. During the trial, the
prosecution presents the agent who posed as the buyer and says that his other companions are
Patrolmen A and B. Then, the drug dealer is convicted. On appeal, both Patrolmen A and B resign.
The drug dealer says, “No, that is not the truth; that is not what happened. As a matter of fact, the
evidence for the prosecution is weak. They should have presented also the other 2 members of the
team. They said there were 3 of them during the buy-bust operation. Therefore, they suppressed
evidence from us.”

According to the SC: “It is for the prosecution to determine how many witnesses it will present. If it
believed that (the presentation of witness) is not necessary, that is its concern. And if you believed
that the testimony of Patrolmen A and B will be for you, why did you not subpoena then as your
witnesses? You did not subpoena them, you did not act.” Because their testimony would merely
cumulative and corroborative. They will only serve to support the statement of the prosecution
witness. So there is no willful suppression. There is no willful adverse presumption arising from the
suppression of evidence here.

(4) The evidence is at the disposal only of the suppressing party.

There is no way for the other side question it. One party cannot say:

Counsel : Why did you not present the document in your possession? Your Honor,
since he did not present it, this should work against him. He should lose.

Judge : Do you have a copy of the document?

Counsel : Yes.

Judge : Well, why did you not present it also?

So, the section is not applicable here. The document should be at the disposal of the suppressing
party.

Take note that there is another presumption which is not found in the Rules, but is related to this,
laid down by the SC: PRESUMPTION OF FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE. When one present
evidence, such as falsified documents to help him in his case, the SC said: “The presumption arises
that the case is groundless and it affects the whole mass of evidence presented by the party.”

Meaning, this will work against the person who fabricated his evidence. All other evidence presented
in court by him for his defense will be tainted. There is a presumption that he fabricated his evidence
because his case is groundless.

“(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;”

This is self-explanatory. When one pays money to A, the presumption is that the amount is due A.
There is no presumption of payment by mistake, or wrong payment. If one says that A should not
have been paid, that the payment was a mistake, that can be done. But the law presumes that when
one pays to somebody, the money is due to him. That is common sense.
 ”(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;”

If one delivers to another an object, the presumption is that the latter owns it. There is no
presumption of wrong delivery.

“(h) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;”

Said in another manner: Evidence of an obligation is delivered to the debtor. For example, promissory
note. An obligation may be proved by a promissory note. The promissory note was returned to the
debtor. With that, the creditor has no more evidence to prove the debtor’s obligation in his favor.
Why was the promissory note returned to the debtor? Because the debt has been paid.

A specific example of this is where people keep with them the bouncing cheques issued to them. The
issuer of the cheques redeem the same day paying the amount of their debts. The cheques issued
are returned to them. The presumption is that the debt has been paid; the obligation has been
extinguished. But when the creditor remains in possession of the instrument of indebtedness, the
presumption is that the obligation has not yet been paid.

“(i) That prior rents or installations had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is
produced;”

For example, A rents an apartment. He gets a receipt every month when he pays rentals. If he has in
his possession the receipt for the Payment of Rentals for the Month of August, the presumption is
that he had already paid rentals for the month of June and July. The receipt for the previous months
need not be presented. If one presents as evidence the latest receipt, the presumption is that he had
already paid for the previous balances. Or, if a receipt for the month installment is in possession of
the debtor, the presumption is that he had already paid for the first, second and third installments.

This is how people normally behave in business. When one owns an apartment which he rents out,
and his tenant has been in arrears for 3 months, the tenants tells him that he would be paying for
one month. He accepts the payment. When he makes the receipt, the payment would be applied to
the oldest balances. Otherwise, if he applies the payment to the latest balance, the earlier balances
are presumed paid.

A consequence of the above presumption are related presumptions which have been encountered in
the study of Obligations: (a) When one presents a receipt showing payments of the principal
obligation, the presumption is that the interest has already been paid. But a receipt showing the
payment of the interest does not raise the presumption that the principal has already been paid.
However, this is only a disputable presumption. The trouble is, if one goes against the normal pattern
of the behavior of man, certain presumption will arise against him.

“(j) 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 which a person possesses, or
exercise acts of ownership over, are owned by him;”

This provision refers to the Adverse Presumption from Possession of Stolen Goods. When a certain
property is the object of robbery or theft, and is now found in the possession of A, the presumption is
that he is robber or thief. There is also a similar presumption in other crimes: The possessor and the
user of a falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification.

Dean I. applied this presumption in a certain case. The accused used a falsified cheque. It was a
dollar cheque from abroad. The cheque was genuine, but the signature of the payee was bogus. It
was taken from the post office and nobody knew how it happened that the cheque was encashed
here in Davao. Dean I. honestly believed that the person who went to the bank to deposit the cheque
was not the person who stole it and falsified the signature. But the trouble was, nobody knew who
did. So, since the person who deposited the cheques was the one who used it, the presumption was
that he was the falsifier. Dean I. could not charge other persons because he did not know they were.
The bank would testify that he was the one had it encashed; therefore, he must be the falsifier. The
burden of proving that he was not the falsifier was shifted to him.

The possessor of stolen property is deemed to be robber or thief. For this presumption to
apply, the SC said that the following requisites must be established:

1) The crime of theft or robbery was committed. One must prove first the commission of the
theft and robbery.
2) That it was committed recently.

For example, stolen property was found in the possession of X, and Y proved that this was the same
property that was stolen before. When was the robbery or theft committed? 3 years ago. The
presumption there is weak. In 3 years’ time, the property could have passed on to so many hands
already. The presumption disappears, or becomes weaker and weaker if there is a big gap between
the time the alleged robbery or theft was committed, and the time the stolen property was found in a
person’s possession.

Suppose the property was stolen 3:00 PM. At 3:15 PM, only fifteen minute later, it was found in the
possession of Z. what is the presumption? In 15 minutes, the property could not have been disposed
immediately. The lesser the length of time between the time it was stolen and the time it was found
in somebody’s possession, the stronger is the presumption. That is what “recently” means.

3) That the property which is the object of the crime was round in the accused’s possession.
4) That the accused is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily. He is unable to give a
satisfactory or credible explanation as to how the property can be into his possession. He will
try to make up a story. Whether or not the explanation is believable, it is for the court to
decide.

“(k) That a 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;”

This refers to negotiable instruments. For example, X issued a cheque payable to the order of Y. The
cheque is now with X. The presumption is that the cheque has already been paid. It has already been
returned by the bank.

Another example: X issues a cheque payable to Y or order. It was given to Y. After 3 or 4

months, the cheque is back with X. The presumptions: To whomever the cheque was negotiable, it
has already been paid by X. Or, the obligation has already been extinguished by the merger. Or,
because the cheque was indorsed by Y to Z., then by Z to A; A indorsed it to B, and because B owes
X a particular amount, B indorsed it to X. So, the presumption is that the obligation is extinguished by
merger or confusion of debts.

“(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;”

“(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;”

A person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it; the official duty has been
regularly performed. Both are briefly called the PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF OFFICIAL ACTS.
There is a presumption that one is not a usurper; that one is elected or was validly appointed. There
is no presumption if usurpation, nor neglect of duty, or irregular performance of duty.

This presumption is usually applied in buy-bust operations of the NARCOM. The defense sometimes
assails the validity of the operation by saying that the evidence was planted, etc. So, who is telling
the truth? The Rules of Court states that there is a presumption of regularity.

Normally, between the story of the arresting officer and that of the accused, the SC leans towards the
story of men in authority, because of the presumption of regularity of duty. Although this is
disputable, the evidence should be clear and strong.

CASE: People vs. de Guzman, 229 SCRA 795

FACTS: Accused-appellant has been in the watch list of the police as a prohibited drug
peddler. On 2 occasions, they tried to entrap him but without any success. The third time, however,
yielded a positive result.

The buy-bust operation was conducted by 2 policemen, with one of them acting as a Metro
Aide who casually approached de Guzman and asked him if he could “score” a deck of shabu, worth
P50. In exchange, the accused gave him an aluminum foil containing crystalline granules, and then
signaled to his companion. Thereafter, the accused was frisked and the search yielded 4 aluminum
foils which contained shabu. Both policemen executed a joint affidavit of apprehension, relating in
detail the events leading to the arrest of the accused.

The lower court found the accused guilty of the crime of drug pushing and imposed upon him the life
sentence. On appeal, the accused questioned the joint affidavit executed by the policemen.

ISSUE: Whether or not court erred in upholding the credibility of the policemen-witnesses for the
prosecution and in convicting the accused on the basis thereof.

HOLDING: A disputable presumption has been defined as a species of evidence that may be
accepted and acted on where there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands,
or which may be overcome by other evidence.

A presumption of this nature is indulged by the law for the following fundamental reasons:

1) Innocence and not-wrong is to be presumed;

2) An official oath will not be violated;
3) A republican form of government cannot survive long unless a limit is placed upon
controversies reposed in each government department or agent by every other such
department or agent, at least to the extent of such presumption.

The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity
or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than
clear and convincing evidence on the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes
conclusive.

Without this presumption, the government will be at a loss. The people must put or repose trust and
confidence upon their public officers. Therefore, this presumption evidences a RULE OF CONVENIENT
POLICY. This presumption evidences a rule of convenient policy universally applied and without which
great distress would spring in the affairs of the government. Society would be more difficult to govern
unless public officers are given this kind of presumption.

“(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;”

“(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and
passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted
for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;”

There is a presumption that every judge is acting in the exercise of his authority, and that his decision
is valid unless it shows on its face the lack of jurisdiction. The presumption is, when the court decides
a case, all the issues raised upon it were considered by the court. This is called the PRESUMPTION OF
REGULARITY OF JUDICIAL ACTS. This is similar to official acts, but this is more specific.

“(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;”

This is called the PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS. When there is a

transaction between 2 businessmen, the presumption is that it is fair and regular, and that there is no
fraud. There is no presumption of unfairness and irregularity. He who alleges fraud must prove it.

“(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;”

This is still the presumption of regularity in the ordinary course of business. The presumption is that
everything has been done with sufficient regularity.

“(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;”

If there is no consideration for a contract, it is void. There is no presumption of lack of cause or

consideration. Every contract is presumed to have a cause or considering, and is presumed to have
been validly concluded.

”(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;”

There is no valid negotiation if there is no sufficient consideration. The presumption is that an

instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. If there is a promissory note, it is
presumed that there was an obligation.

“(t) That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was
overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated.”

Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, every holder is presumed to be a holder in due course.

“(u) That a writing is truly dated;”

For example, it is dated 09 August 1996. Of course, the date may be altered to 11 August 1996. A
person can write a letter today and antedate it to 01 August 1996, or he can write a letter on 01
August 1996 and post-date it to 05 August 1996. But that is hot the presumption. The presumption is
that the date that appears on the letter is the real date.

“(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;”

That a writing duly addressed to someone was received by him during the regular course of the mail.
That is why the law insists on sending through registered mail – so that the letter cab still be traced
as to the time when it was delivered or received. This is the reason why the law on pleadings require
registered mail. But as to registered or even ordinary or special mail, for as long as the letter was not
returned to the sender, the presumption is that it was received by the addressee. This considers also
that the letter was properly addressed and properly mailed. If the letter was not returned to its
sender, between the sender’s word and the addressee’s, the presumption remains the letter was
received.

For this provision to apply, the SC said that the following requirements must be complied with:

(a) A letter was written and signed;

(b) It was placed in an envelope, sealed and properly addressed;
(c) The postage was pre-paid; and,
(d) It was deposited in a post-office mailbox.

Normally, in the course of the trial, a party is required to narrate the process of sending the letter. He
must establish step-by-step that the requisites were followed strictly. If there is any requisites that
was not observed, no presumption arises. This process is applicable where there is a controversy as
to whether the letter was received or not.

Q: Does the presumption apply also to telegrams?

A: YES, provided the following requisites are proved and complied with:

a) The telegraph message was duly or properly addressed;

(It was addressed to the properly party.)
b) It was duly delivered for transmission;
(This may be established by presenting a duplicate copy.)
c) The charges were pre-paid. Not collect. There is a receipt to prove payment. Because if it is
the addressee who has to pay for the message, he might not want to pay.

The placing of the sender’s return address on the envelope is not necessary in order for the
presumption to apply. Although for purposes of Rule 13, the sender’s address must be indicated. This
is applicable to lawyers. But this presumption applies to all, even to lay people. But for purposes of
establishing constructive service of notice or motion of pleadings, a sender’s address is important
because the main proof that the letter was not delivered is the Return-To-Sender certification. So, if
the return address of the sender is indicated on the envelope, the presumption becomes stronger.

“(w) That the after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the
absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.

The absence shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an
absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years
shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.

The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the divisions of the estate among
the heirs:

(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has
not been heard for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
 (2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing
for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence
has not been known for four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded belief that he absent spouse
is already dead. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death under the
circumstance hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient the
purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again,
the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Family Code and
in the rules for a death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
the absent spouse.”

This is called the PRESUMPTION OF DEATH. The substantial law for this may be found in
Articles 390-391 of the Civil Code, on the provisions of Absence. This has not been repealed
by the Family Code.

The general rule is: 7 years. So, a person is presumed dead for all purpose, except for that of
succession.
For example, X disappeared for 7 years. There was no news of him, his family tried to look
for him.
Q: After 7 years, can the family of X now partition the properties of X among themselves?
A: NOT YET. They must wait until after 3 more years because the purposes of succession, It
must be 10 years (not 7). The period therefore depends upon the purpose.

However, the period is shortened, even for succession when a person disappears under
extraordinary circumstances – situations where a person is in danger of death. Examples:
disappearance while on board a vessel lost on a sea voyage, or in an aircraft that is missing
and for 4 years, the person has been unheard of – then he can be presumed dead for all
purposes, even for succession.

The same rule applies if a person disappears while he is fighting in a war. 4 years will be
enough to raise the presumption of his death. The remaining paragraph of this provision
were taken from the Family Code.
Q: When is a person presumed dead?
A: He is presumed dead, if:
a) Under ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, at the end of the period prescribed by law.
b) Under EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, at the time of the disappearance.

Take note: According to American jurisprudence: The exact date of death is a matter of
proof. There is no presumption as to the date of death. There is a merely a presumption of death.
The law will not venture to give an exact date as to the death of a person.

“(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable
to the law or fact;”

When one agrees to something there is a presumption that what he agreed to is conformable to law
or is legal. There is no presumption of agreeing to something illegal. This is a presumption of good
faith.
 “(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary
habits in life.”

The value of this presumption is in weight. This is important in the discussion of Rule 133. When
evidence is submitted and is admissible, normally there more than 2 versions of the story which are
at times conflicting. The court is now called upon to decide on which version is to be given weight.
The judge has to use many factors such as witnesses. But one factor which the SC keeps on applying
is this very effective guide. How do things happen normally? When something happens, such-and-
such is the normal reaction. The SC always presumes that things happen according to the ordinary
course of events and nature.

The test is: What is ordinary? What is normal? Whether or not the action is conformable with human
experience? And if a person’s reaction seems to be abnormal – of course, it is possible that he might
be telling the truth. But the court will take note that his conduct seemed to be out of the ordinary,
that it did not conform to the normal reaction of persons. With that, the court will decide which
version of the story is true, because it is natural and normally occurs, as well as conforms with
everyday experience.

Try to read all the decision of the SC, and they will often say that the case boiled down to the issue of
who is telling the truth. And this presumption is applied. That is why, if a lawyer has been in practice
for so long and his client tells him unusual version of the story, the lawyer’s problem would be how to
convince the court of the truthfulness of the story, considering that it was not in accordance with the
ordinary course of nature. And as between what is probable and improbable, the court will always
lean on what is probable.

To paraphrase this provision, the SC says: The story of the victim accused, as the case may be is,
“logical, natural, probable, and therefore, has the carmarks of truth. Conversely, what is illogical does
not necessarily pertain to the truth.” This means that the story is in accordance with the ordinary
course of nature and in the habits of life.

In criminal cases, such as in rape, the usual defense of the accused is that the reaction of the victim,
if not that of reporting the alleged rape until after one week, is unnatural. The SC said that that is a
natural reaction. It is natural for the woman victim to be silent for a while. She way be afraid of being
embarrassed.

“(z) That persons acting as co-partners have entered into a contract of co-partnership;”

This is self-explanatory. Partnerships are valid, whether or not it is in writing. If the members thereof
are partners, the law presumes that there must be a contract of partnership.

“(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered in a
lawful contract of marriage;”

This is self-explanatory. There is no presumption that a couple are merely living together. A man and
woman purporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed to have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage.

“(bb) That property acquired by a man and woman are not capacitated to marry each other
and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or
under a void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry;”

There is no conjugal or absolute community presumption in this provision. They acquired the property
through their efforts because they are living together. This is the presumption if they are capacitated
to marry – meaning, there is no impediment for them to get married. In effect, this is a co-ownership.
But they are not married.

“(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and woman who are not capacitated to marry
each other and who have acquired property through their actual joint contribution of money, property
or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and
evidence of credit are equal;”

Q: What is the difference between paragraphs (bb) and (cc)?

A: The difference is that is paragraph (bb), there is no marriage but the parties are CAPACITED to
marry. In paragraph (cc), there is a marriage (but not to each other). They are NOT CAPACITATED to
marry. In this case, their assets will be divided equally among them. This is also a presumption of co-
ownership.

“(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within
three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the
absence of proof to the contrary:

1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage, provided if the
born within three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage;
2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent
marriage is considered to have been deceived during such marriage, even though it be born
within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage;”

This provision is taken from Article 168 of the Family Code. This is about a widowed woman
and how to determine a doubtful paternity.

“(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that
nature;”

Briefly, this is the PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUITY OF EXISTANCE/

For example: A witness, X, testifies. According to X, he was able to personally see this particular
piece of land. Questions were asked of him with respect to that piece of land:

Counsel : What improvements exist on the land>

X : There was a house made of concrete, there were 50 durian trees and 100
coconut trees.

Counsel : When did you see this?

X : In 1991

Counsel : From 1991 to the present, were you able to go back to that land?

X : No, that was the last time I saw it.

So, based on the testimony, there are durian and coconut trees as well as concrete house there. The
witness himself admitted that he saw them in 1991. It is possible, though, that the trees may have
already been felled, but the presumption is, that they are still there. It is for the other party to prove
that they cease to exist in that piece of land between 1991 and 1995.

Therefore, when a thing is proven to have existed before, the presumption is that it is still existing
today. But this provision cannot be applied to certain objects.

For example, a witness testified that the last time, 4 years ago, he saw block of ice inside a particular
house. The presumption cannot be that the block of ice is still in that house now. Naturally, the ice
would have melted and disappeared by now. That is why the law says, “xxx as long as is usual with
things of that nature xxx” – meaning, the thing being referred to is not consumable; it cannot just
disappear. Therefore, the presumption here cannot be applied to all objects.

There are other presumption not found in the law, but are recognized by jurisprudence, and which,
through common sense, can be connected to the presumption of continuity of existence.

Examples:

1) Presumption of continuity of life

Q: A testifies that X was alive last year. A was able to talk to him. Although he has not seen X
recently, may it be presumed that he is already dead by now?

A: NO. The presumption is that X is still alive now. It is for the party interested to prove his death
to do so. There is a presumption of continuity of life.

Q: But what if, during the last time A saw X, the latter was in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the
hospital and was already gasping for breath, does the presumption of continuity of life still apply?

A: NO. This is another story. The presumption will not die.

2) Presumption of continuity of mental condition

This is taken from American jurisprudence. If a person is mentally normal during the last time
he was seen, the presumption is that he is mentally normal this time.

3) Presumption of continuity of physical condition

The last time a person was seen, he was healthy. The presumption is that he is still healthy
now.

4) Presumption of continuity of possession

This is taken from the Civil Code. If one was a possessor of a thing in good faith before, the
presumption is that he continues to the possessor of that thing in good faith now.

“(ff) That the law has been obeyed;”

It is disputably presumed that the law has been obeyed. There is a presumption by the provision
of law. Every person is assumed to be law-abiding. It is for the party disputing this presumption
to prove the contrary.
 “(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public
authority, was so printed or published;”

For example: You came across a book or a pamphlet on which is indicated that it was printed by
the Bureau of Printing of the Republic of the Philippines. This is according to the official
government publication. Presumption: It is true; it was printed by the public authority as stated
there.

“(hh) That 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;”

For example: The SCRA. It is book, the publisher of which claims, that it compiles all decisions of
the SC for the month. It is a private publication. The presumption is that the cases are
ACCURATELY reported. Since the presumption is that the cases as reported are accurate, the
courts can rely upon them as they are published.

“(ii) That 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-or-in-interest;”

This is related to the Law on Trusts. For example, when a person is a trustee, under the law he
holds the property for the benefit of the beneficiary or somebody else. The presumption is that
the trustee has compiled with the trust. That he actually conveyed the property to the beneficiary
when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person of his successor-in-
interest.

“(jj) That except for purpose of succession, when two person perish in the same calamity, such
as wreck, battle, or conflagaration, 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:

1) If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
2) If both were above the age of sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
3) If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4) If both be over fifteen and under sixty and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have
survived; if the sex be the same, the older;
5) If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed
to have survived.”

This is briefly called the PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSITY. This talks about 2 people who died in a
calamity, quake, battle, fire, etc. It is highly probable that they died. But they might not have died at
exactly the same time – at the same minute and in the same second. Maybe one lived a little longer
that the other. The question being settled here is: In all probability, who died first? Which one died
before the other? The law lays down the presumption. Taking into consideration their ages, sexes,
strengths, the probability is that one would live longer than the other. However, this provision can be
applied, EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF SUCCESSION. The court will not apply this for the purpose of
determining who succeeded to whom.

Q: What does “for purpose of succession” means?

A: For example: Father and son died. Under the Laws of Succession, they are heirs of each other. If
the father died ahead of the son, by operation of law, the son inherited the father’s properties. But
after 5 minutes, the son died also. A party is contending now that one died ahead of the other, so
that one’s heirs will get the bigger share of the properties.

It is very clear in the opening clause of paragraph (jj) that this provision will not apply to the
succession. The phrase “ except for purpose of succession” was inserted in 1989 Rules.

“(kk) That if there is doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each
other, as to which if them died first, whomever 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.”

Q: Compare: Paragraph (jj) PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORS and the PRESUMPTION OF

SIMULTANEOUS DEATH?

A: 1) In PRESUMPTION OF SUVIVORSHIP, the presumption refers to death in a calamity: the

PRESUMPTION OF SIMULTANEOUS DEATH is silent as how the party died – whether in a calamity, or
in whatever way.

2) The PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP may be invoked only if the facts on which they are based
are known or knowable; the PRESUMPTION OF SIMULTANEOUS DEATH applies only if there is doubt
as to who of several persons who are called to succeed each other, died first.

Q: What is meant by “facts of which they are based are known or knowable”?

A: There is evidence as to ages of the parties and their successors-in-interest. That is why the
presumption is applied based on what is known – how old is this person, how his physical condition is
– these are the facts that are known, or knowable.

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

illegitimacy of the child born after three hundred 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
allegation.”

Q: What happens if a woman is widowed; without remarrying she delivered a baby after 300 days, is
the child presumed to be the child of the later husband or not?

A: The law will not render an answer. There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy.

POINTS TO BE REMEMBERED REGARDING PRESUMPTIONS:

Q: What is a PRESUMPTION?
A: It is defined as an inference on something unknown arising from something which is known. A
presumption cannot be crated unless there is a basis. Based on what one is already know, one must
relate that inference to something that is known.

A presumption can only be based on facts. A presumption cannot be made to rest on another
presumption. Presumptions are allowed when the facts from which they are deduced are fully proven.
Otherwise, it will lead to a fallacy. One will merely be going into a series of syllogisms without definite
bases. In this case, one arrives at an absurd conclusion.

Q: What is the role of presumption is evidence?

A: Presumption do not constitute evidence. They have no value as such. They only determine who
should present evidence. As a matter of fact, a presumption need not to be proved. Evidence
displaces presumption. Presumption merely aid in establishing a prima facie case. But presumptions
are rebuttable.

For example: A person is presumed innocent. That is not yet evidence because even before being
able to do anything, the presumption is already in his favor. Because if the presumption of innocence
the prosecution must destroy that first. It helps the defense initially, but once evidence to the
contrary is proven, the presumption will be destroyed.

To borrow the language of American jurisprudence: “Presumption merely act in establishing a prima
facie case and have no probative effect when the counter-evidence has been offered.” Evidence to
the contrary can destroy presumption of innocence.

According to foreign jurisprudence: “Presumptions may be looked on as the bats of the law,
fleeting in the twilight, but disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts.” At night the bats fly around;
then, when the sun comes out, they hide. “Presumptions are like bats of the law. They are fleeting in
the twilight but disappears in the sunshine.”

Q: What happens if there is a collision between 2 presumptions? Which one prevails?

A: According to American jurisprudence, the weaker presumption has to kneel to the stronger one. To
determine which is the weaker or stronger presumption, one must look at the evidence. If the
evidence leans towards a presumption which is backed up by evidence, it is the stronger
presumptions then. The weaker presumption must yield to the stronger one. So, the relative strength
of a presumption can be determined only upon the evidence presented.

Example:

Presumption # 1: Every person accused of a crime is presumed innocence thereof.

Presumption # 2: Every person found in possession of stolen things is presumed guilty.

The prosecution must present its evidence first in order to prove that a crime of theft or robbery was
committed. So, there is no conflict. The second presumption arises only upon the presentation of
evidence.