Chapter 2

Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning

A. Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof
- duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law
- basic rule: burden of proof lies upon him who asserts it

Application
- civil cases: plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegations of the
complaint; defendant has the burden of proving the material allegations in his
answer.
- administrative case: burden of proof that respondent committed the acts
complained of rests on the complainant.
- party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it; mere allegation is not evidence

Equipoise Doctrine
- when the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, or there is doubt on which
side preponderates, the decision should be against the party with the burden of
proof.

B. Evidence

Evidence
- means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact.

Best Evidence Rule (Rule 130, section 3 of Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)
- applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry.
- If the issue is only W/N such document was actually executed, exists, etc., the
best evidence rule does not apply. Testimony evidence is admissible. Any other
substitutionary evidence is admissible without need to account for the original.
- Production of the original may be dispensed with whenever the opponent does
not bona fide dispute the contents.

C. Admissibility and Relevance

- Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the issue, and if it is not excluded by
provision of law or by the Rules of Court.
- Relevance: Evidence must have relation to the fact in issue.
- Evidence to believed must proceed not only from the witnesses but must be
credible in itself to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common
experience of mankind.
E. Testimony of Witnesses

Testimony
- confined to personal knowledge, and excludes hearsay, except otherwise
provided under the Rules of Court.

Hearsay Rule
- A witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either
because he was told, he read or heard. Such is considered hearsay.
- Exceptions to the hearsay rule:
o Entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public
officer. Official entries are admissible regardless of w/n person who made
them was presented and testified in court. These are considered as prima
facie evidence.
o Reasons for this exception
§ Necessity – inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the official’s
attendance
§ Trustworthiness – presumption of regularity of performance of duty

F. Expert Testimony
- Refers to statements made by individuals who are considered as experts in a
particular field
- Under the Rules of Court – opinion of witness on a matter he is shown to
possess knowledge, skill, experience or training, may be received in evidence.
o A published treatise, periodical, or pamphlet is admissible if the court
takes judicial notice, or a witness expert testifies, that the writer in the
treatise etc. is recognized in his profession.

G. Examination

- Under the Rules of Court – the order in which an individual witness may be
examined is as follows:
a) Direct examination by the proponent – examination-in-chief by party
presenting him
b) Cross-examination by the opponent – as to any matters stated in the direct
examination to test his accuracy and truthfulness and bias, and elicit all
important facts
c) Re-direct examination by the proponent – by the party calling him, to
explain or supplement his answers in the cross-examination. Matters not dealt
with during cross-examination may be allowed by the discretion of the court.
d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent – as to the matters in the re-direct,
and other matters allowed by the court.
- Without leave of court, witness cannot be recalled after examination of witness
- A witness may be impeached by the opposing party by contradictory evidence,
by evidence that his general reputation is bad, or evidence of statements he has
 made inconsistent with his testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful
acts, except it may be shown that he has been convicted of an offense.
- If impeachment is to be done through evidence of statements, he must be asked
w/n he made such statements, and be allowed to explain. If the statement is
made in writing, it must be first shown to the witness.

H. Dependence on Precedents

- Stare decisis et non quieta movere is the bedrock of precedents.

- General rule: when a point has been settled by a decision, it becomes a
precedent which should be followed in subsequent cases before the same court.
- The doctrine of adherence of precedents was applied in English courts adopted
in the United States.
- This is embodied in Civil Code, Article 8 – “Judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines.”
- When a court has laid down a principle, and apply it to future cases, where facts
are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and the properties
are the same.
- Only upon showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the
benefits derived by the judicial system, can the courts be justified in setting aside
the same.

Pesca v. Pesca
- FACTS: The petitioner and respondent were married and had four children.
Lorna filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity on the part of her husband. She alleged
that he is emotionally immature and irresponsible. He was cruel and
violent. He was a habitual drinker. Whenever she tells him to stop or at
least minimize his drinking, her husband would hurt her. There was even a
time when she was chased by a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her
in the presence of their children. The children also suffered physical
violence. Petitioner and their children left the home. Two months later, they
returned upon the promise of respondent to change. But he didn’t. She
was battered again. Her husband was imprisoned for 11 days for slight
physical injuries. RTC declared their marriage null and void. CA reversed
RTC’s ruling. Hence, this petition.
- ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in giving retroactive application to the doctrine laid out
in Santos v. CA and Republic v. CA and Molina?
- HELD: The Court found no merit in the petition. With stare decisis, the rule
follows the maxim - legis interpretado legis vim obtinet – interpretation placed
upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law. The interpretation
establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. It is only when a
prior ruling of this Court finds itself overruled, and a different view is adopted that
the new doctrine may be applied prospectively in favor of the parties who had
relied on the old doctrine and acted in good faith.