The burden of proof, which is also referred to as onus probandi, is the

obligation of a party to a litigation to persuade the court that he/she is entitled to relief. 1
As defined in Rule 131 of the Rules of Court:

Section 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.2

It is settled that the burden of proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right. In
a counterclaim, the burden of proving the existence of a claim lies with the defendant. 3
As such, the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the
issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment. For the defendant, an
affirmative defense is one which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiffs
cause of action, but one which, if established, will be a good defense (i.e., an avoidance
of the claim).4

It is clear from the Rules that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence not only to establish a claim, but also a defense. Thus, this duty does not
pertain to the plaintiff alone, but rather to any of the parties in the case. A party who
alleges the existence of a fact has the burden of proof whether that party is the plaintiff
or the defendant.5

Burden of Proof in Civil Cases

In civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. 6 A mere allegation
is not evidence, and he who alleges has the burden of proving his allegation with the
requisite quantum of evidence.7

Preponderance of evidence is the quantum of evidence required for the plaintiff to

establish his claims in a civil case. If he/she claims a right granted or created by law,
he/she must prove such rightrelying on the strength of his/her own evidence and not
on the weakness of that of the other party.8 The plaintiff is only obliged to prove facts
which constitute the essential elements of his/her cause of action. Facts that are not
necessary to establish his/her claim need not be proved. 9

Explaining further, the Supreme Court held:

1 WILLARD B. RIANO, EVIDENCE 89 (2013).

2 Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 1.
3 Ogawa v. Menigishi, G.R. No. 193089, July 9, 2012.
4 Supreme Transliner Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125356, November 21, 2001.
5 RIANO, supra note 1, at 92.
6 Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation v. Con-Field Construction and
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 159731, April 22, 2008.
7 Clado-Reyes v. Limpe, G.R. No. 163876, July 9, 2008.
8 Spouses Guidangen v. Wooden, G.R. No. 174445, February 15, 2012.
9 RIANO, supra note 1, at 91.
 In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his
case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto. Thus, the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who
asserts the affirmative of an issue has the onus to prove his assertion in
order to obtain a favorable judgment. For the plaintiff, the burden to
prove its positive assertions never parts. For the defendant, an
affirmative defense is one which is not a denial of an essential ingredient
in the plaintiffs cause of action, but one which, if established, will be a
good defense i.e. an avoidance of the claim.10

In cases anchored on a quasi-delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff has
the burden of proving that the fault or negligence of the defendant was the proximate
cause of the injuries he/she sustained. Meanwhile, the defendant has the burden to
prove his/her defense as when he/she claims that the injuries of the plaintiff were
caused not by his/her wrongful conduct, but by a third person or a fortuitous event. 11

In a case of intervention, the person who wants to intervene in an action has the
burden of proving his legal interest in the matter in litigation or that he is so situated as
to be adversely affected by any distribution or other disposition of property in custody of
the court or an officer thereof.12

In an action based on a contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence
and execution of the contract, the obligations of the defendants under the contract, and
the corresponding breach thereof. 13

In an action for a sum of money, the plaintiff places upon himself the burden of proving
the existence of the debt, and the non-payment of the same despite a proper demand
upon the defendant on or after the due date of the obligation. 14 Ei incumbit probation qui
dicit, non qui negathe who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. 15 If the defendant
admits the debt but asserts that it has already been paid, waived, or otherwise
extinguished, he/she has the burden to prove the extinguishment of the alleged
obligation.16 As held by the Supreme Court:

As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.
Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that
the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the
plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing
with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.

When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence

contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been

10 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Royeca, G.R. No. 176664, July 21, 2008.
11 RIANO, supra note 1, at 90.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005.
16 Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana, G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005.

2
 extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such a
defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the debtor introduces some
evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence - as
distinct from the general burden of proof - shifts to the creditor, who is
then under a duty of producing some evidence to show non-payment 17

Tests for Determining Where Burden of Proof Lies

The test for determining where the burden of proof lies is to ask which party to an
action or suit will fail if he/she offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred
as the basis for the relief he/she seeks to obtain. If the defendant has affirmative
defenses, he/she bears the burden of proof as to those defenses which he sets up in an
answer to the plaintiffs cause of action; he/she being the party who asserts the truth of
the matter he/she has alleged, the burden is upon him/her to establish the facts on
which that matter is predicated and if he/she fails to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to a
verdict or decision in his favor.18

The burden of proof rests with the party who wants to establish a legal right in his
favor. One who claims a right granted by law must prove his claim by competent
evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. 19

The burden of proof is fixed by the pleadings. The claim of the plaintiff, which
he/she must prove, is spelled out in his/her complaint. The defendants defenses, which
he/she must likewise prove, are found in his/her answer to the complaint. The burden of
proof of both parties do not shift during the course of the trial, unlike the burden of
evidence,20 which is a partys duty to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the
prima facie evidence against him/her.

17 Jimenez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116960, April 2, 1996.

18 Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying, G.R. No. 144773, May 16, 2005.
19 China Banking Corporation v. Ta Fa Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 160113, April 30, 2008.
20 RIANO, supra note 1, at 100.