Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

1) Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs CA and Custodio, G.R.

No. 104408, June 21, 1993


-case of liability resulting from a vehicular accident;

It is procedurally required for each party in a case to


prove his own affirmative assertion by the degree of
evidence required by law. In civil cases, the degree of
evidence 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. It is, therefore, incumbent on the plaintiff
who is claiming a right to prove his case. Corollarily,
defendant must likewise prove its own allegation to buttress
its claim that it is not liable. (Stronghold Insurance Company,
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 173 SCRA 619 [1989]) In
fine, the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts
the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting at
the trial such amount of evidence required by law to obtain a
favorable judgment. It is entirely within each of the parties
discretion, consonant with the theory of the case it or he
seeks to advance and subject to such procedural strategy
followed thereby, to present all available evidence at its or
his disposal in the manner which may be deemed necessary
and beneficial to prove its or his position, provided only that
the same shall measure up to the quantum of evidence
required by law. In making proof in its or his case, it is
paramount that the best and most complete evidence be
formally entered.
2) Jimenez vs NLR, G.R. 116960, April 2, 1996
-burden of proof in proving payments

It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove


his affirmative allegations. Since the burden of evidence lies
with the party who asserts an affirmative allegation, the
plaintiff or complainant has to prove his affirmative
allegation, in the complaint and the defendant or respondent
has to prove the affirmative allegations in his affirmative
defenses and counterclaim.
3) Lolita Lopez vs Bodega City and Torres-Yap, G.R. No.
155731, Sept. 3, 2007
-illegal dismissal case; must prove Employee-Employer Rel. exists

It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must prove


his affirmative allegation. 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.
4)Ricardo Portuguez vs GSIS Family Bank and CA, G.R. No.
169570. March 2, 2007
-illegal dismissal case; Petitioner never presented any evidence at all
other than his own self-serving declarations.

We must bear in mind the legal dictum that, he who


asserts, not he who denies, must prove
5) Vitarich Corp. vs Chona Losin, G.R. 181560, Nov. 15, 2010
-burden of proof of payment

As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the


burden of proving it. In Jimenez v. NLRC, the Court ruled that
the burden rests on the debtor to prove payment, rather
than on the creditor to prove non-payment. The debtor has
the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation
has been discharged by payment.
True, the law requires in civil cases that the party who
alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Section 1, Rule
131 of the Rules of Court provides that the burden of proof is
the duty of a party to prove the truth of his claim or defense,
or any fact in issue by the amount of evidence required by
law. In this case, however, the burden of proof is on Losin
because she alleges an affirmative defense, namely,
payment. Losin failed to discharge that burden.
6) Acabal and Nicolas vs Acabal et al, G.R. No. 148376,
March 31, 2005
-case of annulment of deed of sale

The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution


of an actionable document does not preclude a party from
arguing against it by evidence of fraud, mistake,
compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel, and
want of consideration. It is a basic rule in evidence that the
burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations
ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per
rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. If he
claims a right granted by law, he must prove it by competent
evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and
not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. Also,
allegations of a defect in or lack of valid consent to a
contract by reason of fraud or undue influence are never

presumed but must be established not by mere


preponderance of evidence but by clear and convincing
evidence.
7) Spouses Agner vs BPI Family Savings Bank Inc., G.R.
182963, June 3, 2013
-case of Chattel Mortgage, an Action for Replevin and Damages

Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who


pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden
rests on the defendant to prove payment rather than on the
plaintiff to prove non-payment. When the creditor is in
possession of the document of credit, proof of non-payment
is not needed for it is presumed. Respondents possession of
the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage strongly
buttresses its claim that the obligation has not been
extinguished.
The creditors possession of the evidence of debt is
proof that the debt has not been discharged by payment. A
promissory note in the hands of the creditor is a proof of
indebtedness rather than proof of payment. In an action for
replevin by a mortgagee, it is prima facie evidence that the
promissory note has not been paid. Likewise, an uncanceled
mortgage in the possession of the mortgagee gives rise to
the presumption that the mortgage debt is unpaid.
Indeed, when the existence of a debt is fully established
by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of
proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves
upon the debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the
creditor. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal
certainty that the obligation has been discharged by
payment.
8) Policarpio Cayabyab vs IAC, G.R. 75120, Apr. 28, 1994
-annulment of the deeds of sale and recovery of possession of land
with damages

Indeed, the general rule is that whosoever alleges fraud


or mistake in any transaction must substantiate his
allegation, since it is presumed that a person takes ordinary
care for his concerns and that private transactions have
been fair and regular. This rule is especially applied when
fraud or mistake is alleged to annul notarial documents
which are clothed with the prima facie presumption of
regularity and due execution (Revised Rules on Evidence,
Rule 132 [B], Sec. 30).

Nevertheless, the general rule admits of exceptions,


one of which is Article 1332 of the Civil Code which
provides:
When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the
contract is in a language not understood by him, and
mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract
must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained
to the former.
Under the foregoing provision, where a party to a
contract is illiterate, or can not read nor understand the
language in which the contract is written, the burden is on
the party interested in enforcing the contract to prove that
the terms thereof are fully explained to the former in a
language understood by him. In all contractual, property or
other relations, where one of the parties is at a disadvantage
on account of his physical, mental or other handicap, the
courts must be careful and vigilant for his protection (Civil
Code of the Philippines, Art. 24).
In the case at bench, both respondent Faustino
Landingin and Agapita Ferrer were illiterate. The latter, in
fact, could only thumbmark her signature on all the deeds of
sale; and although respondent Faustino Landingin may have
affixed his signature to the deeds of sale, he could neither
read nor write and actually lost the use of his right arm to
paralysis. To make matters worse, all the deeds were written
in English while the spouses could speak and understand
only the Pangasinense and Ilocano dialects.
Since fraud and undue influence in the execution of the
subject deeds are alleged by respondents, the burden, under
the circumstances, shifted to petitioner to prove that the
contents thereof had been adequately explained to the
vendors and that the latter fully understood the same.
9) Republic vs Carmen Victoria Belmonte, G.R. 197028, Oct.
9, 2013
-case for Application for Registration and Confirmation of Titles
A person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of
land on the basis of possession by himself and his
predecessors-in- interest must prove his claim by clear and
convincing evidence, that is, he must prove his title and
should not rely on the absence or weakness of the evidence
of the oppositors. Evidently, Belmontes witnesses were not
able to give a concrete, consistent and credible picture of
how she exercised dominion or exercised control over the
subject properties.

10)