EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

b)

J. Opinion Rule
Rule 130, Sec. 48. General rule The opinion of a witness is
not admissible, except as indicated in the following sections.
Rule 130, Sec. 49. Opinion of expert witness The opinion of
a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be
received in evidence.
Rule 130, Sec.50. Opinion of ordinary witness The opinion
of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received
in evidence regarding
a)

The identity of a person about whom he has

b)

adequate knowledge;
A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;

c)

and
The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.

The witness may also testify on his impressions of the

emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
A. General rule
An opinion of a witness is inadmissible. (Rule 130, Sec. 48)
Reason for the rule
A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge (Rule 130, Sec.36) and it is for the court to
draw conclusions from the facts testified to. (Riano)
Opinion an inference or conclusion drawn from facts
observed.
Exceptions
1. Opinion of expert witness (Rule 130, Sec. 49)
2.

Opinion of an ordinary witness (Rule 130, Sec.50)

B. Opinion of an Expert Witness

Expert witness one who has made the subject upon which he
gives his opinion a matter of particular study, practice or
observation and he must have particular and special knowledge
on the subject (People v. Dekingco)
Basis of expert opinion
An expert witness may base his opinion either on
a)

the first hand knowledge of the facts or

Where the expert witness is required to give an opinion
based on facts which he knows personally, he must first
state those facts before giving an opinion.

the basis of hypothetical questions where the facts are

presented to him hypothetically and on the assumption
that they are true, formulates his opinion on the
hypothesis. (Francisco)
A proper hypothetical question places before the expert
witness assumed facts which have been proved.

Expert evidence testimony of one possessing with regard to a

particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge
which is not usually acquired by other persons. (Herrera)
Expert evidence is admissible, only if:
1. The matter to be testified requires expertise;
2. The witness has been qualified as an expert; and
3. Expert testimony must pertain to the matter in issue.
(Regalado)
Probative value
Expert opinion evidence is to be considered or weighed by the
court, like any other testimony, in the light of its own general
knowledge and experience upon the subject of inquiry.
The probative force of an expert witness testimony lies in the aid
that he can render to the courts in showing the facts which serve
as basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of
his conclusion is founded, (Dizon v. Tuazon)
When faced with conflicting expert opinions, courts give weight
and credence to that which is more complete, thorough and
scientific. (Bacalso v. Padigos)
Competency of witness is a preliminary question before
testimony is admitted.
It must be shown that the witness is an expert. While there is no
exact standard in fixing his/her qualifications, to be qualified,
he/she must possess special skill or knowledge respecting the
matter involved superior to that of ordinary persons. (Francisco)
Common subjects of expert testimony
1. Handwriting
2. Typewritten documents
3. Fingerprints
4. Ballistics
5. Medicine
6. Value of property and services
C. Opinion of an ordinary witness
His/her testimony may be admitted in evidence, provided:
a) the proper basis of the opinion is given and
b) subject of the opinion is any of the following matters in
Rule 130, Sec. 50
1

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

1.

Opinion as to the identity of a person (adequate

knowledge)
Statements of a witness as to identity are not to be rejected
because he is unable to describe the features of the person
in question. (Herrera)
A person may be identified by his voice, his lefthandedness, his skill, his residence, his personal history at
college. (Francisco)
2. Opinion as to the handwriting of a person
The ordinary witness must be acquainted with the
characteristics of the handwriting of a person. He may only
draw on the knowledge which he already has and which
enables him to recognize the handwriting.
Expert witnesses, on the other hand, are allowed to give
conclusions from the comparison of samples of handwriting
of a person whose handwriting he is not familiar with.
(Herrera)
3. Opinion as to the mental sanity or insanity of a
person
Ex. A subscribing witness to a will may testify as to his
opinion concerning the testamentary capacity of the
testator as evidenced by his conduct at the time of
executing the will, since he was chosen by the testator
for that purpose. (Francisco)
4.

Impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition, or

appearance of a person

Layug v. CA
F: Teresita (priv. respondent) filed a petition for habeas corpus
against her husband (petitioner) to regain custody of her two
children, but it was dismissed by the trial court which ruled in
favor of the latter. Petitioner presented the testimonies of two
expert witnesses a social worker and psychologist to show

The Court also upheld the competency and professional

integrity of the expert witnesses who testified on the childrens
preference. The fact that they were hired by the petitioner did
not diminish their credibility. Their examination on the children
was conducted prior to the filing of the habeas corpus petition;
it was not made to support petitioners position.
Doctrine: Expert examinations, when presented to the court
must be construed to have been presented not to sway the
court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the
determination of the issue before it.
The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is within
the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability
and character of the witness, his actions on the witness stand,
the weight and process of reasoning by which he has
supported his opinion, his possible bias, the fact that he is a
paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and
observation of the matters about which he testifies, and other
matters.
Marcos v. Heirs of Navarro, Jr,
F: The dispute concerned a parcel of land left behind by the
Spouses Navarro to their heirs, the petitioner and respondents
in this case. However, respondent alleged that the property
exclusively belongs to them by virtue of an affidavit of transfer
of real property executed by Navarro, Sr. to his son, Navarro,
Jr. Petitioner said that it was a forgery and had the document
examined by a PNP handwriting expert, PO2 Alvarez, who
said that the signatures of Navarro Sr. in the affidavit and
specimen werent made by the same person.
Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for the annulment of the deed
of donation. Respondents moved to have PO2 Alvarez
disqualified as a witness because the examination wasnt
authorized; they werent given notice; and her testimony was
hearsay and irrelevant. The trial court disqualified the witness
and the case was later dismissed. Petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari before the CA, but it was dismissed (refused to take
judicial notice of the decision in another CA division, reinstating
the civil case).

that children chose the father over the mother.

The CA reversed the trial courts ruling and applied Art. 363 of
the Family Code which states that children under 7 years of
age shall not be separated from their mothers.
H: The SC reversed the CA and awarded the custody to
petitioner; it held that the presumption in favor of the mother
(Art. 363) is strong but its not conclusive and can be overcome
by compelling reasons. The 7 year age limit should only be
treated as a guide and not an arbitrary cut off period.
In this case, the children chose to be with their father. There
are also compelling reasons not to grant custody to Teresita
(her bigamous marriage and other love affairs).

H: On the issue of whether PO2 Alvarez should be disqualified

as a witness, the SC ruled in the negative; it held that PO2
Alvarez was qualified to be a witness because she possesses
all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications in Secs.
20 to 24 of Rule 130.
The trial court erred in granting the motion to disqualify the
witness because it confused the qualifications of the witness
with the credibility and weight of her testimony.
Also, shes an expert witness under Sec. 49, Rule 130. Thus,
her testimony is not hearsay. However, the trial court ruled at
2

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

the outset that her testimony was hearsay even before her
testimony is offered and she is called to the witness stand. The
value of her expert opinion cannot be determined if she is not
even allowed to testify on the handwriting examination she
conducted.
Doctrine: The use of the word may in Section 49, Rule 130 of
the Rules on Evidence signifies that the use of opinion of an
expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of
the courts.
However, the Court also recognized that handwriting experts
are often offered as expert witnesses considering the technical
nature of the procedure in examining forged documents.

People v, Fundano
F: Fundano was charged with 3 counts of rape committed
against his 15 y.o. daughter, Melody. The prosecution
presented Melody and an NBI Medico-Legal Officer (Dr.
Victoria) as its witnesses. Melody was examined by Dr. Victoria
who found that while she had no hymenal injuries and that her
hymen was still intact, it admitted a 2.8 cm diameter tube
without injury.
Fundano argued that he left Manila (Makati where the alleged
rape took place) for Bicol years ago, that he would only visit
from time to time, and that he was bedridden in Bicol during
the material dates when the rape was committed. This was
corroborated by his witnesses. RTC Makati found him guilty.
Among his claims, Fundano questioned Dr. Victorias lack of
expertise since he claimed the prosecution did not establish
the witness qualifications.
H: The SC affirmed the conviction, finding his defense of alibi
untenable. Further, the Court ruled that the defense was
unable to impeach the credibility of the expert witness Dr.
Victoria. The mere statement that the prosecution was unable
to present Dr. Victorias qualification was insufficient.
At any rate, neither the medical report nor the testimony of
witnesses other than the complainant is indispensable when
the complainants testimony is credible.
Doctrine: Before one may be allowed to testify as an expert
witness, his qualifications must first be established by the party
presenting him, i.e., he must be shown to possess the special
skill or knowledge relevant to the question to which he is to
express an opinion.
An expert witness may be impeached, or the weight of his

opinion lessened, by introducing evidence or pointing out

paradoxes in his testimony; and in the cross-examination of
such a witness, great latitude is allowed the examining counsel
to test the credibility of the expert for the guidance of the court.
Reyes v, Sisters of Mercy
F: Petitioners (minor children as represented by their mother,
Leah) filed a damages suit against the respondent (community
clinic) for its negligence in failing to provide adequate care and
hiring negligent doctors which led to the death of Jorge, their
father.
The latter was taken to the clinic after suffering from a
recurring fever for five days. The diagnosis of the two doctors
who treated him was that he was suffering from typhoid fever
and they administered to him two doses of chloromycetin.
However, he died 10 hours later.

Petitioners offered the testimony of Dr. Vacalares, a chief

pathologist of a hospital, who performed an autopsy on Jorge.
He testified that the cause of death was not typhoid, but shock
from the overdose of the medication. Respondents presented
two expert witnesses who testified that Jorge died of typhoid
and that the autopsy of Dr. Vacalares was incomplete and
inconclusive.
Trial court dismissed the complaint. Petitioner appealed before
the CA wherein they argued that the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitor applies and thus, expert medical testimony may be
dispensed with. The CA denied their appeal.
H: On the issue of res ipsa loquitur, the SC held that it is
inapplicable, disagreeing with the petitioners that expert
witnesses are not necessary.
The present action is for medical malpractice and it has 4
elements: duty, breach, injury and proximate causation. In
determining the reasonable level of care and its breach, expert
testimony is essential to support the conclusion as to its
causation since the causes of the injuries involved can only be
ascertained using scientific knowledge.
Expert medical testimony may be dispensed with in cases
where res ipsa loquitor applies because the injury itself
provides the proof of negligence.
The general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies
only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical
science and not to matters that are within the common
knowledge of mankind which may be testified by anyone
familiar with the facts.
3

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

The four requisites of res ipsa loquitor were not present in this
case. Respondents failure to observe due care was not
immediately apparent to a layman so as to justify the
application of this doctrine.
On the issue of whether petitioners established specific acts of
negligence committed by the respondent, the SC held in the
negative. Respondents doctors were justified in acting the way
they did since the standard contemplated for doctors is the
reasonable average merit among reasonably good physicians.
Doctrine: The general rule is that in the determination of the
reasonable level of care and the breach thereof, expert
testimony is essential. Inasmuch as the causes of the injuries
involved in malpractice actions are determinable only in the
light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert
testimony is usually necessary to support the conclusion as to
causation.
An exception to the rule is when res ipsa loquitur is applicable.
The court is then permitted to rule that a physician is negligent
upon proper proof of injury to the patient, without the aid of
expert testimony, where the court from its fund of common
knowledge can determine the proper standard of care.

As found by the CA, there are marked differences between the

signatures in the receipts and complainants specimen
signature which are easily discernible by the naked eye.
Doctrine: Sec. 50, Rule 132 states that the opinion of a witness
for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence
regarding the handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity.
Also cited was Sec. 22, Rule 132 which provides that the
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he
has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be
his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and
has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against
whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the
satisfaction of the judge.

K. Character Evidence
Rule 130, Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions

Mariano v. Roxas
F: Mariano filed an administrative complaint for forgery and
dishonesty against Susan Roxas, Clerk III of the CA Third
Division with the CA. The former alleged that the latter bought
jewelry from her but, she didnt pay in full, leaving a balance of
P12, 110. Mariano further alleged that Roxas authorized her
to collect her (Roxas) benefits to answer for her obligation, but
this authority was revoked without informing Mariano, which
constitutes dishonesty.
In her defense, Roxas argued that she overpaid, as shown by
typewritten receipts Mariano allegedly signed.
but Mariano claimed that her signature was forged and that
she never issues typewritten receipts. This fact was
corroborated by her witness, Lorna Caraga, her friend and
former office mate, and was familiar with her signature.
Mariano also claimed that she Roxas didnt overpay her.

a)

In Criminal Cases:
1)The accused may prove his good moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove
his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.
3) The good or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved if it tends to establish any
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.

b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character
involved in the case.
b)

In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14.

Rule 132, Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of witness

The investigating officer found Roxas liable for misconduct for

forging Marianos signatures. The CA adopted these findings.

Evidence of good character of a witness is not admissible until

H: The SC affirmed the CA and held that Lornas opinion A.

regarding Marianos signature, which she made as an ordinary
witness, may be admitted in evidence pursuant to Sec. 50,
Rule 130. Lorna testified she is familiar with Marianos
signature, having worked with her for 5 years in the RTC.

Definition
Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to
and distinguish an individual person. Its what the person really
is. (Riano)

such character has been impeached.

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

(as opposed to) Reputation depends on attributes which others
believe one to possess.

Evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible

only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in
the case. (Rule 130, Sec. 51[b])
. Ex. In civil actions for damages arising from the
offenses of libel, slander, or seduction.

B. General Rule
Character evidence is inadmissible. (Rule 130, Sec. 51)
Reason for the rule
Character is irrelevant in determining a controversy because
evidence of ones character is not admissible to prove that a
person acted in conformity with such character or trait in a
particular occasion. Otherwise, the trial would be like a
popularity contest.

3.

Proving good or bad character of a party

The testimony to prove the good or bad character of
party in a civil or criminal action must relate and be
confined to the general reputation which such person
sustains in the community or neighborhood. (Francisco)

Exceptions
1. CRIMINAL CASES
a) Accused - May prove his/her good moral
character, which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged. (Rule 130, Sec.
51[a]1)
Ex. In estafa, perjury, or false testimony, may prove
moral trait for honesty or probity.
b)

Prosecution May not prove the bad moral

character of the accused, except in rebuttal (after
the accused raises issue of his/her good character,
prosecution may present evidence to the contrary)
(Rule 130, Sec. 51[a]2)
Reasons for the rule
It prevents a pronouncement of guilt on account of
the accuseds being a bad man.
It also prevents the inference that being a bad
person, the accused is more likely to commit a
crime.
It discourages the presentation of propensity
evidence (evidence that one acts in accordance
with ones character).

c)

Offended party His/her good or bad moral

character may be proved if it tends to establish in
any reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
The character evidence must be limited to the traits
and characteristics involved in the type of offense
charged.
Ex. On a charge of rape, character for chastity; on
a charge of assault, character for peaceableness or
violence; and on a charge of embezzlement,
character for honesty.

2.

CIVIL CASES

WITNESSES (in civil and criminal cases)

The bad moral character of a witness may always be
proved by either party but not evidence of good moral
character, unless such character has been impeached.
(Rule 132, Sec.14)

Some civil actions where measure of compensation

may be affected by the plaintiffs character
1. Defamation cases
2. Action for breach of promise to marry
3. Action for malicious prosecution

CSC v. Belagan
F: In 1996, Belagan, who is the Superintendent of DECS in
Baguio City, was charged with two separate complaints for
sexual harassment and dereliction of duty. These were filed
before DECS by Magdalena Lapuz, the owner of a pre-school,
and Ligaya Annawi, a public school teacher.
Lapuz alleged that she applied for a permit to operate with
DECS and that, during the school inspection, while the two of
them were alone, Belagan hugged her and kissed her on the
cheeks. He even asked her out on a date, but she declined.
Eventually, her application was granted.
DECS found him guilty and dismissed him. Upon appeal, the
Civil Service Commission dismissed Ligayas complaint and
affirmed that of Lapuz.
Belagan filed an MR wherein he tried to establish the
complainants bad reputation by enumerating her several
offenses for oral defamation, grave threats, malicious mischief,
among others. He claimed that this would cast doubt on her
character, integrity, and credibility. However, his MR was
denied.
The CA reversed the CSC resolution and dismissed Lapuzs
complaint.
H: On the issue of whether the complaining witness was
credible, the SC ruled in the affirmative. The general rule is
that the character of a party is legally irrelevant in determining
a controversy, but exceptions are provided in Sec. 51, Rule
5

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

130.

Marquez to murder.

Respondent mainly relied on Sec. 51(a), but it pertains to

Doctrine: The rule is that the character or reputation of a party

criminal cases and the case at bar is an administrative one.

is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy,

Even assuming that the rule applies, not every good or bad

so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily,

moral character of the offended party may be proved under

if the issues in the case were allowed to be influenced by

this provision. The character evidence must be limited to the

evidence of the character or reputation of the parties, the trial

traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense

would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather

charged.

than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the

As applied in this case for sexual harassment, respondent

business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and

didnt offer evidence that has a bearing on Lapuzs chastity

a very bad man may have a righteous cause. There are

which means that the evidence does not establish the

exceptions to this rule however and Section 51, Rule 130

probability or improbability of the offense charged. What hes

gives the exceptions in both criminal and civil cases.

trying to establish instead was her lack of credibility which is

governed by a different provision (Sec. 11, Rule 132, ROC).
Though she was the offended party, Lapuz, by testifying in her
own behalf, may be impeached by an attack on her character
or reputation.
On the issue of whether her derogatory record suffice to
discredit her credibility, the SC ruled in the negative. The
cases involved acts committed in the 1980s. These are no
longer reliable proof of her character or reputation.
Doctrine: When the credibility of a witness is sought to be
impeached by proof of his reputation, it is necessary that the

IV. Burden of Proof

Rule 131, Sec.1 Burden of proof Burden of proof is the duty
of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary
to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law.
Rule 131, Sec.2 Conclusive presumptions The following are
instances of conclusive presumptions:
a)

or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another

reputation shown should be that which existed before the

to believe a particular thing is true, and to act upon

occurrence of the circumstances out of which the litigation

such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of

arose, or at the time of the trial and prior, but not at a period

such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to

remote from the commencement of the suit. This is because a

person of derogatory character or reputation can still change
or reform himself.

b)

integrity.
People vs. Lee
F: Lee was charged with the murder of Joseph Marquez.
According to the victims mother, she saw the former firing at
his son inside their house. In his defense, Lee claimed that he
was in his house when the crime took place; that the victim
had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and drug
addict; and that some other person with a grudge against the
victim shot him. The trial court found him guilty.
H: SC affirmed his conviction; Proof of the bad moral
character of Joseph is irrelevant to determine the probability
or improbability of his killing because Lee did not allege that
the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in
self-defense. Also, the presence of treachery as an
aggravating circumstance negates the necessity of proving
the victims bad character to establish the probability or
improbability of the offense and qualifies the killing of Joseph

falsify it.
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the

(Re impeachment of witness) A witness may be discredited by

evidence attacking his general reputation for truth, honesty, or

Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act,

relation of landlord and tenant between them.

Rule 131, Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
a)
b)

That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;

That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful

c)

intent;
That a person intends the ordinary consequences of

d)
e)

his voluntary act;

That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse

f)

if produced;
That money paid by one to another was due to the

g)

latter;
That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to

h)

the latter;
That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has

i)

been paid;
That prior rents or installments had been paid when

j)

a receipt for the later one is produced;

That a person found in possession of a thing taken in
6

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

(4) If a married person has been absent for
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and
four consecutive years, the spouse present
the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
may contract a subsequent marriage if he
which a person possess, or exercises acts of
or she has well-founded belief that the
ownership over, are owned by him;
absent spouse is already death. In case of
disappearance, where there is a danger of
k) That a person in possession of an order on himself
death the circumstances hereinabove
for the payment of the money, or the delivery of
provided, an absence of only two years
anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
shall be sufficient for the purpose of
accordingly;
contracting a subsequent marriage.
l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly
However, in any case, before marrying
again, the spouse present must institute a
appointed or elected to it;
summary proceedings as provided in the
m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
Family Code and in the rules for declaration
n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
of presumptive death of the absentee,
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful
without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse.
exercise of jurisdiction;
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the
o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case
thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or
were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and
fact;
in like manner that all matters within an issue raised
(y) That things have happened according to the
in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before
ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits
of life;
the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered
p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
into a contract of copartneship;
q) That the ordinary course of business has been
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves
followed;
as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a
contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman
contract;
who are capacitated to marry each other and who
s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
for a sufficient consideration;
without the benefit of marriage or under void
t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was
marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
made before the instrument was overdue and at the
work or industry.
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a
place where the instrument is dated;
woman who are not capacitated to marry each other
u) That a writing is truly dated;
and who have acquire properly through their actual
v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received
joint contribution of money, property or industry, such
in the regular course of the mail;
contributions and their corresponding shares
w) That after an absence of seven years, it being
including joint deposits of money and evidences of
credit are equal.
unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the
considered dead for all purposes, except for those of
mother contracted another marriage within three
succession.
hundred days after such termination of the former
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of
opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he
proof to the contrary:
disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty
of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession
days after the solemnization of the
may be opened.
subsequent marriage is considered to have
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes
been conceived during such marriage, even
including the division of the estate among the heirs:
though it be born within the three hundred
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a
days after the termination of the former
sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing,
marriage.
who has not been heard of for four years
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty
since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
days following the celebration of the
(2) A member of the armed forces who has
subsequent marriage is considered to have
taken part in armed hostilities, and has
been conceived during such marriage, even
been missing for four years;
though it be born within the three hundred
(3) A person who has been in danger of
days after the termination of the former
death under other circumstances and
marriage.
whose existence has not been known for
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as
four years;
long as is usual with things of the nature;
7

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
Test to determine where burden of proof lies
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to
Which party would fail if he offers no evidence competent to
be printed or published by public authority, was so
show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to
printed or published;
obtain? (Aznar Brothers vs. Aying)
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting
contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
country where the book is published, contains
correct reports of such cases;
B. Burden of proof
vs. Burden of evidence
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was
Risk of non-persuasion
Duty of going forward with
to convey real property to a particular person has
evidence
actually conveyed it to him when such presumption
Remains
with
the
party
Shifts from party to party
is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his
throughout
the
trial
depending
upon
the
successor in interest;
exigencies
of
the
case
in
the
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when
two persons perish in the same calamity, such as
course of the trial
wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown
Generally determined by the Generally determined by the
who died first, and there are no particular
pleadings filed by the party
developments at the trial or by
circumstances from which it can be inferred, the
the provisions of substantive
survivorship is determined from the probabilities
law or procedural rules which
resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes,
may relieve the party from
according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen
presenting evidence on the
years, the older is deemed to have
fact alleged (ex. presumptions,
survived;
judicial
notice,
and
2. If both were above the age sixty, the
admissions)
younger is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other
C. Quantum of evidence
above sixty, the former is deemed to have
survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty,
1, Civil cases preponderance of evidence (Rule 133, Sec.1)
and the sex be different, the male is
deemed to have survived, if the sex be the
2. Criminal cases same, the older;
a) For issuance of warrants of arrest evidence of probable
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and
cause that there exist a reasonable ground that the accused has
the other between those ages, the latter is
deemed to have survived.
committed an offense
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more
b) For filing of an information prima facie evidence
persons who are called to succeed each other, as to
c) To sustain a conviction evidence of guilt beyond reasonable
which of them died first, whoever alleges the death
doubt
of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the
absence of proof, they shall be considered to have
D. Equipoise Rule or Equiponderance Doctrine
died at the same time. (5a)
Rule 131, Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or
The doctrine refers to the situation where the evidence of the
illegitimacy. There is no presumption of legitimacy of a
child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of
parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the
the marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever
evidence preponderates. In this case, the decision should be
alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove
against the party with the burden of proof. (in civil cases)
his allegation.
A. Definition
Burden of proof duty of a party to present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law. (Rule 131, Sec.1) also
known as onus probandi
Burden of proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right. It is
inaccurate to state that it rests solely on the plaintiff for in a
counterclaim, the burden of proving the existence of a claim lies
on the defendant.

In criminal cases, the rule provides that in such an instance, the

constitutional presumption of innocence tilts in favor of the
accused.

PAL vs. Ramos

F: Private respondents were supposed to fly from Naga to
Manila with PAL. It was alleged that, in violation of the
condition on their ticket to check in at least 30 minutes before
the published departure time, they were late so PAL gave their
seats to waitlisted passengers. As a result, respondents filed
8

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

a complaint for breach of contract against PAL for kicking
them off.
H: SC reversed both the lower courts and ruled in favor of
PAL, as the evidence on record belied the claims of the
private respondents and supported the defense of PAL, with
the

latters

testimonial

evidence

corroborated

by

its

evidence for the presumption is the prima facie proof of the fact
presumed.
B. Kinds of presumptions
1.

documentary evidence having more weight over the formers

bare testimonial evidence.
Doctrine: Each party in a case is required to prove his
affirmative allegations. In civil cases, the degree of evidence

Presumption of law (presumption juris) an

assumption which the law requires to be made from a
set of facts. It is mandatory and it is either conclusive or
disputable.
Ex.an accused presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty; in case of death or injury to passengers, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently.

required of a party in order to support his claim is

preponderance of evidence or that evidence adduced by one
party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the
other party.
As a general rule, determination of a question of fact depends
largely

on

the

credibility

of

witnesses

unless

some

2.

documentary evidence is available which clearly substantiates

the issue and whose genuineness and probative value is not
disputed.
A writing or document made contemporaneously with a
transaction in which are evidenced facts pertinent to an issue,
when admitted as proof of those facts, is ordinarily regarded
as more reliable proof and of greater probative force than the
oral testimony of a witness as to such facts based upon
memory and recollection
Lee vs. CA

A. Conclusive Presumptions
Rule 131, Sec. 2 (infra)
A. Definition
Presumption 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.
(Blacks Law Dictionary)
It is an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known,
arising from its usual connection with another which is known, or
a conjecture based on past experience as to what course of
human affairs ordinarily take. (Perez v, Ysip)

Presumption of fact (presumption hominis) when the

assumption is made from the facts without any direction
of law

C. Conclusive presumption (presumption juris et de jure)

A presumption is conclusive when it becomes irrebuttable upon
the presentation of the evidence and any evidence tending to
rebut it is not admissible.
Under the Rules of Court, the conclusive presumptions are
based on the doctrine of estoppel.(Rule 131, Sec. 2)
1.

(Estoppel by conduct or in pais) A party is not permitted

to falsify a thing if:
a) By his own declaration, act, or omission;
b) He intentionally and deliberately led another to
believe a particular thing is true;
c) To act upon such belief; and
d) The litigation arises out of such declaration, act, or
omission.
Ex. Persons who assume to be a corporation without legal
authority to act as such shall be considered as a corporation by
estoppel and shall be liable as general partners.
2.

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.

A presumption is not evidence; merely affect the burden of

offering evidence.

Ex. The lessee, A, assailed the ownership of B, the lessor, over

the property which is the subject of the lease. However, as long
as the lessor-lessee relationship exists, A cannot overturn the
conclusive presumption that B had the better right.

Effect of presumptions
A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on it
to establish a fact in issue. There is no need to introduce

Datalift vs. Belgravia

F: Respondents, owners of a warehouse built on property
9

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

leased from PNR, sublet said warehouse to petitioners. When
rent was drastically and unilaterally increased, petitioners
stopped paying. When demands to pay and vacate were
ignored, respondents filed an ejectment suit against
petitioners.

held that after recognizing the validity of the lease contract for
two years, the petitioner spouses are barred from alleging the
automatic cancellation of the contract on the ground that the
respondents lost ownership of the house after Virgilio
acquired title over the lot.

H: MeTC, RTC, and CA all ruled in favor of respondents. SC

affirmed, with slight modification as to amount of rent
arrearages.

D, Disputable presumptions

Court also applied Rule 131, Section 2 in holding that there

exists a conclusive presumption as to the better title or right of
possession of BR as lessor, which petitioners as lessees, can
never assail so long as the lease between them exists.

Satisfactory, if uncontradicted; but may be contracted and

overcome by other evidence (Rule 131, Sec.3)

Doctrine: 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.
The logical consequence of the operation of the conclusive
presumption is that petitioners will never have personality to
question the existence of an implied lease between PNR and
BR/Sampaguita--so long as there is no showing that the
lessor-lessee relationship has terminated.
Alcaraz vs. CA
F: Petitioners and Virginia Tangga-an entered into a lease
agreement. It was limited to the use and occupancy of the
house and did not include the lot since it was then owned by
the NHA.
Petitioners failed to pay rentals and refused to vacate the
property. Respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
against the petitioners.
In their defense, the latter claimed that he ownership of the lot
on which the house stood was transferred by the NHA to
Virgilio and Angelita Tangga-an. Virgilio is the son of the late
Virgilia Tangga-an and respondent Pedro Tangga-an, and the
brother of the other respondents. The subsequent change in
ownership of the lot and the house resulted in the cancellation
of the contract of lease between respondents and petitioner
spouses. Thus, petitioner started paying rentals to the new
owners, not to the respondents.
MTC, RTC, and CA all ordered petitioners to pay rentals and
to vacate the premises.
H: SC affirmed. Petitioners failed to prove Virgilios acquisition
of the property as a sole owner.
Doctrine: In applying Sec. 2, Rule 131 of the ROC, the Court

Rule 131, Sec.3 (infra.)

It is 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 one which may be overcome by
other evidence. (People v.De Guzman)
1. Presumption of Innocence (in criminal cases)
2, That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent
3. That a person intents the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary act
4. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns
5. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced
6. That money paid by one to another was due to the latter
7. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the
latter
8. Than an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid
9. That prior rents or installments had been paid when a
receipt for the later ones is produced
10. Presumption from possession of stolen goods
11. 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
12. That a person in a public office
Burgos vs. Esperon, Jr.
F: After a series of investigations, the CA found that one
Jonas Burgos (JB) is a victim of an enforced disappearance
and held Lt. Baliaga, responsible, while the AFP, accountable.
The present case arose when the Court issued its June 2010
Resolution directing the CHR to continue with investigation of
JB's abduction. In said resolution, Court also highlighted the
failure of PNP-CIDG to identify the cartographic sketches of
two of the five abductors, based on the interview of the
eyewitnesses of the abduction.
In 2011, CHR uncovered a lead, a claim made by Eustaquio,
that the male abductor of JB resembles one of his abductors
(Erap Five incident). This prompted the CHR to request for
some documents from AFP which are confidential in nature.
10

EVIDENCE (MORALES) | E2018 | DEL ROSARIO, GUADALOPE, NIDEA, NUEZ

Said request was allowed by the Court with the condition that
all documents must be delivered first to it so it may examine
and determine their relevance to the case.
H: The AFP's refusal to comply with such directive created
disputable presumption that AFP personnel were responsible
for the abduction. In the end, the Court ruled that the CA's
final determination of persons responsible and accountable
for enforced disappearance of Jonas and criminal action
against Lt. Baliaga has served beneficial purpose of Writ of
Amparo.
At this stage, criminal, investigation and prosecution
proceedings are already beyond reach of said writ. Urgent Ex
Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela must be directed to DOJ
and NBI. The Writ of Amparo proceeding is closed and
terminated, without prejudice to above parties' directives and
Court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce compliance.

Doctrine: Re Rule 133, Sec. 3(e): " That evidence willfully

suppressed would be adverse if produced."
As applied, the deliberate refusal of The Judge Advocate
General to provide CHR with requested documents does not
only defy Supreme Court directive to AFP but ipso facto
created a disputable presumption that AFP personnel were
responsible for the abduction and that their superiors would
be found accountable, if not responsible, for the crime
committed.

Alicbusan vs. CA

11