RULE 131

Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Burden of proof

The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. (Exodus International Construction Corporation vs. Guillermo Biscocho, et. Al.)

Test for determining where the burden of proof lies

"The burden of proof is on the part of the party who makes the allegations – ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat. If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent." (CHINA BANKING CORPORATION vs.TAFA INDUSTRIES, INC., J & H INDUSTRIES, INC., and JEAN LONG INDUSTRIES, INC.)

Equipoise Rule

When the evidence of the parties is in equipoise, or when there is a doubt as to where the preponderance of evidence lies, the party with the burden of proof fails and the petition must thus be denied. (MARUBENI CORPORATION, RYOICHI TANAKA, RYOHEI KIMURA and SHOICHI ONE vs. FELIX LIRAG)

Effect of Presumptions

A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. One need not introduce evidence to prove that the fact for a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed. (DIESEL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. vs. UPSI PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC.)

Conclusive presumptions

Conclusive presumptions have been defined as “inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong.” As long as the lessor-lessee relationship between the petitioners and Belgravia exists as in this case, the former, as lessees, cannot by any proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that Belgravia has valid title to or better right of possession to the subject leased premises than they have. (DATALIFT MOVERS, INC. and/or JAIME B. AQUINO vs. BELGRAVIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and SAMPAGUITA BROKERAGE, INC.)

Estoppel

. Rule 131, Section 2(b) of the Rules of Court precludes a tenant from denying the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. Thus:

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

x x x x x x x x x

(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.

In Geminiano v. Court of Appeals,[13] we stated:

The private respondents, as lessees who had undisturbed possession for the entire term under the lease, are then estopped to deny their landlord’s title, or to assert a better title not only in themselves, but also in some third person while they remain in possession of the leased premises and until they surrender possession to the landlord. This estoppel applies even though the lessor had no title at the time the relation of lessor and lessee was created , and may be asserted not only by the original lessor, but also by those who succeed to his title.

Disputable presumptions

It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.

Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely just that—a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. (THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SAMUEL OBMIRANIS y ORETA)

Presumption of Constitutionality

Every statute has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. This presumption is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon the three coordinate departments of the Government a becoming courtesy for each other’s acts. The theory is that every law, being the joint act of the Legislature and the Executive, has passed careful scrutiny to ensure that it is in accord with the fundamental law. This Court, however, may declare a law, or portions thereof, unconstitutional, where a petitioner has shown a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative one. In other words, the grounds for nullity must be beyond reasonable doubt, for to doubt is to sustain. (BENJAMIN E. CAWALING, JR. vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS)

Tender-age Presumption

The so-called “tender-age presumption” under Article 213 of the Family Code may be overcome only by compelling evidence of the mother’s unfitness. The mother is declared unsuitable to have custody of her children in one or more of the following instances: neglect, abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, or affliction with a communicable disease. (AGNES GAMBOA-HIRSCH vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FRANKLIN HARVEY HIRSCH)

Presumption of Incapacity

It has been held that a person is not incapacitated to contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infirmities. Only when such age or infirmities impair her mental faculties to such extent as to prevent her from properly, intelligently, and fairly protecting her property rights, is she considered incapacitated. (MARIO J. MENDEZONA and TERESITA M. MENDEZONA, LUIS J. MENDEZONA and MARICAR L. MENDEZONA and TERESITA ADAD VDA. DE MENDEZONA vs. JULIO H. OZAMIZ, et. Al.)

Presumption of Innocence

To overcome the presumption of innocence and arrive at a finding of guilt, the prosecution is duty bound to establish with moral certainty the elemental acts constituting the offense. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILSON SUAN y JOLONGON)

Presumption of willful suppression of evidence

Suffice it to say that this presumption does not apply if (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; (b) the suppression was not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative and (d) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. (BLUE CROSS HEALTH CARE INC. vs. NEOMI and DANILO OLIVARES)