Legal Presumptions (5) Flashcards
"It Goes Without Saying" module
What are legal presumptions
- 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.
- are inferences drawn from established facts
is evidence dispensed with insofar as legal presumptions are concenred?
The rule on presumption does NOT completely dispense with the requirement of evidence unlike JN & JA.
evidence is only dispensed with in relation to the fact presumed in law, [but] evidence is required to prove the fact from which said presumption is based
TN:
The fact from which the presumption proceeds must be duly established by evidence. You cannot invoke a presumption on the basis of another presumption.
Can you invoke a presumption on the basis of ANOTHER presumption?
NO.
Ex: In a case of death benefits, suppose:
Presumption 1 – A person missing for 4 years is presumed dead.
Presumption 2 – Since they are presumed dead, they must have died from a work-related cause → (invalid). because Presumption 2 is based on Presumption 1, which is itself only an assumption, not a fact.
The court cannot grant death benefits solely based on the missing person’s presumed death because that second presumption (work-related death) requires actual proof of how the person died.
You cannot stack presumptions—each fact must be proven before applying the next presumption.
👉 Key takeaway:
A presumption only arises if the basic fact supporting it is proven.
You cannot rely on one presumption to justify another. 🚫
Angeles and Malaya dispute the estate of a deceased man. Malaya, claiming to be the legitimate daughter, seeks appointment as administrator. She invokes the presumption that a child born in wedlock is legitimate but fails to prove the marriage. Instead, she relies on the presumption that cohabiting partners who present themselves as married are legally wed. Angeles, the wife, contests Malaya’s claim.
Issue:
Can Malaya rely on presumptions of legitimacy and marriage without proving the actual marriage?
It is not enough to invoke the presumption of legitimacy. Such presumption can only arise if the fact of marriage is duly established which unfortunately was not complied with here.
Presumption must proceed from established facts and not on the basis of another presumption.
Two kinds of presumptions
- conclusive presumptions
- disputable presumptions
CP (conc presump) which cannot be controverted by contrary evidence. This is based on public policy, to encourage fair dealings and good faith in human relations.
Rule 131, Section 2
“Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own [oda] declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, [and] to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
(b) The tenant is NOT permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.”
note
a - A sells a parcel of land to B, explicitly representing in the notarized deed of sale that he is the rightful owner. B, relying on this representation, pays the full purchase price. Later, A tries to reclaim the land by claiming he never actually owned it. A is conclusively presumed to be estopped from denying ownership at the time of sale.
PNR leased a property to Sampaguita. Instead of using it, Sampaguita subleased it to its sister company, Belgravia, which then subleased it to Datalift Movers. After years of peaceful possession, a dispute arose between Belgravia and Datalift regarding rental payments. Datalift stopped paying rent, prompting Belgravia to file an ejectment case. In defense, Datalift argued that Belgravia had no right to sue since it was neither the owner nor the lessee of PNR.
Question:
Can Datalift deny Belgravia’s right to sue based on lack of ownership or legal leasehold rights?
NO
LB: Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty
[SC]
No. The source or validity of Belgravia’s title or right of possession over the leased premises should only be taken cognizance of in a proper case between PNR and Belgravia, but not in the present case.
As long as the lessor-lessee relationship between the petitioners and Belgravia exists as in this case, Datalift 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.
Rule 131 S2 - “…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. “
A landlord leased a property to a tenant. During the lease, the landlord mortgaged the property as collateral for a loan. When the landlord failed to pay, the creditor foreclosed the property and later sold it to the tenant. The landlord then sued the creditor, claiming the foreclosure was illegal, but still demanded rental payments from the tenant.
The tenant refused to pay rent, arguing that since he had already acquired ownership of the property after foreclosure, he was no longer obliged to pay.
Is the tenant still obligated to pay rent despite now being the owner of the property?
[SC]
a tenant cannot deny the landlord’s title at the start of the landlord-tenant relationship. However, this rule only applies to the landlord’s title at the beginning of the relationship.
If the landlord’s title is acquired AFTER the relationship began, the tenant can challenge it.
For example, the tenant can argue that the landlord’s title has expired, been transferred, or even belongs to the tenant. Additionally, the tenant can deny a claim for rent if evicted by someone with a superior title.
In this case, the respondent (tenant) claims ownership of the property acquired after the landlord-tenant relationship began, so the presumption under Section 2(b), Rule 131 does not apply
[NOTES]
The rule that the tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord is applicable only insofar as the title of the landlord at the time of the commencement of the relationship. But where such title was conveyed after the commencement of the lease contract to another, the rule does not apply and hence the tenant can now deny the title of the landlord.
Q. In an instance where a third party comes forward and claims to be the owner of the leased property, what is the legal remedy of the tenant?
Situation: When there are conflicting claims to ownership BEFORE the commencement of the lease, or when the tenant is unsure who the rightful owner is.
To protect the interest of the tenant, the ideal remedy as sanctioned by the Rules is to file an INTERPLEADER case so that the two conflicting claims can be litigated in court, and the tenant protected.
REM: interpleader
Q. In an instance where a third party comes forward and claims to be the owner of the leased property, what is the legal remedy of the tenant?
Situation: If the conflicting claim to ownership arises AFTER the lease has already commenced (for example, a third party claims ownership after the lease starts, but the tenant’s relationship is still with the original landlord).
In this case, the tenant is still bound by the lease contract and must continue paying the rent to the person with whom they entered into the lease agreement (even if a third party claims ownership).
Q. Does conclusive presumption arise from the mere fact of contract of lease without need of showing proof of ownership?
ANS: Yes. The presumption operates by simply entering into contract of lease because it carries with it the recognition that the lessee is dealing with somebody who has a title, if not a better right of possession, of the property
Disputable presumptions > satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence (R131 S3)
(y) Things happen in accordance with the ordinary course of things or ordinary habits of life.
discuss the case of Atienza v. Board of Medicine insofar as LP is
[LP]
it held that there is no need to prove the anatomical positions of said kidneys because of the presumption in law that things happen in accordance with the ordinary course of nature and ordinary habits of life. It is normal that the left kidney is located in the left, and the right kidney to the right.
[JN]
On top of the ruling of the court that there is no need to prove the anatomical positions of kidneys, applying the principle of judicial notice,
Disputable presumptions > satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence (R131 S3)
(e) Evidence willfully suppressed will be adverse if presented.
requisites for this presumption to apply?
- The evidence is willfully suppressed.
- The evidence is not available to the other party.
For the presumption to apply, the suppression must be wilful and deliberately done with malicious intent and the non-presentation of evidence was not explained properly that an adverse inference may be drawn against you.
An insurance contract existed between the insurer and the patient. The patient was hospitalized and filed a claim for insurance proceeds, but the insurer refused to pay, citing a pre-existing illness as the cause of hospitalization, which was an excepted peril. The insurer sought to present the patient’s medical records to support its claim. However, the patient instructed the doctor not to release the records, invoking privileged communication. During the trial, the insurer argued that the non-presentation of the records should be presumed to show a pre-existing condition.
Does willful suppression of evidence apply?
No
LB: Blue Cross Health v. Olivares
SC disagreed with the insurer. For the disputable presumption to apply, the non-presentation of the evidence must be willful.
Here, the willful character is negated by the fact that the non- presentation was pursuant to the patient’s exercise of a right–privileged communication between a patient and the physician.
No inference can thus be drawn from the non-disclosure of the medical records.
This involves the killing by the wife of her husband, who was an abusive policeman. During the course of the investigation, it was established that the police obtained an affidavit of a particular witness who witnessed the killing.
During trial, the prosecution did not present said affidavit and neither was the witness presented.
The accused argued that the willful suppression of the affidavit or the non-presentation of the witness raises the disputable presumption that the witness is adverse to the prosecution.
Does the presumption apply?
No
LB: PP v. Padiernos
The SC disagreed with the wife, holding that the presumption applies only if the evidence allegedly suppressed is not equally available at the disposal of the other party.
In this case, the affidavit is a public document which can be availed of by anyone.
The accused could have asked a subpoena to have the affidavit presented in court.
If the evidence not presented is only corroborative [or] cumulative, and the two requisites are present, can one invoke the disputable presumption?
No, because it is the choice of the party which evidence to present.
IOW, for the presumption to apply, the evidenced suppressed should be a vital evidence
Disputable presumptions > satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence (R131 S3)
(j) A person caught in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.
give example
Robbery w/ homicide, the possessor will be assumed to have done the robbery and killing
This involves a case of robbery with murder. Subsequently, some items belonging to the victim were found to be in the possession of the accused. the accused was not able to explain how he came to the possession of the stolen items.
as judge, can you convict him of the special complex crime of robbery w/ homicide?
Yes
LB: PP v. Acejo
The court convicted the accused based on this presumption because the accused was not able to explain how he came to the possession of the stolen items.
A taxi driver was robbed and subsequently, his personal effects were recovered from the accused including the driver’s license which he superimposed by his photograph
Can you convict the accused for homicide for his mere failure to explain how he possessed the items?
Yes, it is a legal disputable presumption
LB: PP v. Newman
SC convicted the accused not just for robbery but also for murder because he failed to explain how he possessed the items.
Disputable presumptions > satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence (R131 S3)
in PP v. Newman’s presumption “(j) A person caught in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.”
but it contradicts another presumption: “Presumption of Ownership”
(?) “The person in possession of a property in the concept of an owner is presumed to be the owner and may not be required to prove his title.”
in what instance will “presumption that possessor is owner” be applied?
innocent buyer purchasing property from a merchant store even if it is a product of a crime. To the effect that the real owner cannot recover that bought property from you
LB: Edu v. Gomez (1984)
A person in possession of a thing in the concept of an owner is presumed to be the owner and she cannot be compelled to prove her title. It is incumbent upon the other party to prove otherwise and go to court. In the meantime, that person who possesses the thing should not be disturbed in her possession. She is not even required to go to court to apply for replevin as the presumption is in her favor.
Disputable presumptions > satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence (R131 S3)
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
Give an example
When a person signs a document but denies it in court by saying he did not know the contents thereof
3 presumptions involving death
- presumption of death
- presumption of survivorship
- presumption of simultaneity of death
- Presumption of death
(w) That after an absence of ___ years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of ___.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of __ years. If he disappeared after the age of __ years, an absence of __ years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
- 7
- succession
- 10
- 75
- 5
- Presumption of death
(w) xxx
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs (w/ successiom)
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, [or] an aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of for [4] years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for [4] years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for [4] years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for [4] consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death.
In case of DISAPPEARANCE, where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only [2] years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. …
Summary of rules: For purposes other than succession [and] remarriage
GR
GR: presumed dead in absence of [7] under ordinary circumstances
When is the presumption of death inapplicable?
if there is preponderance of evidence, then presumption cannot apply. (Eastern Shipping Lines v. Lucero)
does one have to wait for the lapse of the respective period for the presumption of death to apply?
No, if it can be reasonably be established that missing person is actually dead, then no need to wait for period prescribed.
preponderance of evidence can be established even in the absence of the body of the missing person
Mr. Lucero was the captain of the vessel which capsized. However, minutes before the vessel disappeared and lost contact with the employer, Capt. Lucero was able to send radio messages describing their conditions (waves, winds, etc.). So the vessel capsized and all the crew including Capt. Lucero perished with it.
After the incident, the wife of Capt. Lucero came forward and demanded for payment of Mr. Lucero’s salary. She claimed that the
law requires 4 years before her husband can be presumed dead. Thus, before the expiration of the 4-year period, her husband is “still alive” and therefore, he should continue to receive his salary and that being the wife, she should be allowed to claim.
Is Mrs. Lucero application of the presumption correct?
No
LB: Eastern Shipping Lines v. Lucero
The presumption of death applies only in the absence of preponderance of evidence that would establish the fact of death.
Under the circumstances, there was enough preponderance of evidence to establish that indeed Capt. Lucero died when the vessel
capsized. Thus, there was no need to wait for 4 years before death can be established.
Facts:
A seaman’s vessel caught fire while the crew was asleep, and they instinctively jumped off the ship. The crew was never found again. The father of the missing seaman, who was the only surviving heir, filed for death benefits. However, the employer refused to release the benefits, citing the legal requirement that the crew must be missing for 4 years before being presumed dead. The father was advised to wait for the 4-year period to pass before claiming the benefits.
Is the advice correct?
No.
LB: Victoria Shipping v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission
There is enough preponderance of evidence that the missing crew died when they jumped off the vessel in the occasion of the fire. Therefore, it dispenses with the requirement of presumption of death which requires four years to lapse.
Presumption of Survivorship
That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, [and] it is not shown who died first, [and] there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred,
the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
- If both were under 15 y.o, the older is deemed to have survived;
- If both were above 60, the younger is deemed to have survived;
- If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former (teen) is deemed to have survived;
- If BOTH be over fifteen AND under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
- 23M & 25M (25M survived)
- 23M & 25F (23M survived) - If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
for what purposes is the presumption of survivorship applicable?
contract of insurance
what rule of presumption can succession be applicable for?
presumption of simultaneity
PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS (Section 5, Rule 131)
whom the presumption operates against, has the burden to rebut it
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy shall apply.
give example of a weightier consideration
presumption of innocence and presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.
POI is constitutionally rooted and is thus weightier the POR which is derived from procedural rules
Thus, if the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to prove the elements of the crime charged or to establish the identity of the accused as the culprit, can the conviction of the accused be based on the LP of regularity of the law enforcement agents?
No, the presumption of innocence remains unbutted
what is the effect IF CONSIDERATION OF POLICY IS OF EQUAL WEIGHT
neither presumption applies
PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASES (Section 6, Rule 131)
“If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of the offense charged, [or] negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt [and] the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt”
what is required for presumption in criminal cases to apply?
- existence of basic fact proved BRD
- presumed fact (that establishes guilt) must follow the basic fact that was proved BRD
otherwise, presumption will NOT apply
note
- BRD - (beyond reasonable doubt)
- This is consistent with the fundamental principle that the prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt
Example: Malversation by a Public Officer (Under Article 217, Revised Penal Code)
Juan, a municipal treasurer, was in charge of handling government funds. During a routine audit, the Commission on Audit (COA) discovered that ₱5 million was missing from the municipal treasury. When asked to produce the missing funds, Juan failed to do so and could not provide a valid explanation.
Can the prima facie evidence apply?
- Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, there is a prima facie presumption that a public officer who fails to account for public funds upon demand has misappropriated them (malversation).
- However, this presumption can only be used if the prosecution first proves beyond reasonable doubt that:
- Juan was a public officer handling public funds.
- The funds were lawfully entrusted to him.
- There was a shortage in the funds under his control.
- He failed to produce the missing amount upon lawful demand.
- If these basic facts are proven beyond reasonable doubt, the law presumes malversation and Juan must provide evidence to rebut this presumption
So, following the previous card that the presumption of innocence remains unbutted, does that mean in the case of PP v. Newman & PP v. Acejo, where the SC convicted the accused under the LP of
“A person caught in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker & the doer of the whole act.”
Does that mean that LP is weightier than the POI?
[imo]
- POI is weightier since it is constitutionally rooted HOWEVER, since it is a presumption, then it can be overturned.
In these cases, the accuse was not able to explain how they came into possession of the stolen items thereby overcoming the heavy POI.
Ms. Z was found dead in her house at 7 a.m. Her time of death is estimated to be between 10 p.m. and midnight. It has been established that someone saw Mr. X entering Ms. Z’s house around 9 p.m. and leaving at midnight. Given these circumstances, should we not infer and presume the possibility that he may be the one who killed Ms. Z?
Is that a presumption or a circumstantial evidence?
presumption is required by law so naa shay legal effect. ang inference kay it has no legal effect
Stated differently, a person is found in possession of a stolen item.
Is it a legal presumption or a circumstantial evidence?
If it’s a presumption, then are you considering it as a direct evidence?
If it’s a circumstantial evidence, then what’s the difference between
a) circumstantial evidence -can be inferred from making an assumption on established facts
from
b) legal assumption
- which draws its existence from an established fact
