Below is a comprehensive and systematic discussion of Presumptions under Rule 131 of the Philippine Rules of Court (Revised Rules on Evidence), including the distinctions between conclusive and disputable presumptions, their legal effects, and the key principles governing their application. This is based on the 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, effective May 1, 2020) and prevailing jurisprudence.

I. OVERVIEW OF PRESUMPTIONS

Presumptions are inferences or conclusions that the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts or circumstances. They can either be:

Conclusive (irrebuttable) Presumptions – Presumptions that cannot be contradicted or overcome by any additional evidence. Once established, they are binding and final.
Disputable (rebuttable) Presumptions – Presumptions that hold unless contradicted by evidence. They may be overcome by proof to the contrary.

Under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131 governs Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence, and Presumptions (both conclusive and disputable).

II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND BURDEN OF EVIDENCE (Brief Context)

Before diving into the specific presumptions, it is important to recognize that Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 131 also discuss the burden of proof and burden of evidence:

Burden of Proof (Section 1) – Refers to the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. The plaintiff or the party asserting the affirmative typically has the burden of proof.
Burden of Evidence – Shifts from one party to another depending on the weight of the evidence presented. Once a party establishes a presumption or a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the other party to refute such presumption.

Presumptions play a crucial role in how burdens are allocated. A disputable presumption places the burden on the opposing party to present contradictory evidence once the foundational facts triggering the presumption are shown.

III. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS (Section 2 of Rule 131)

A. Nature and Definition

Conclusive presumptions are those which the law does not allow to be overcome by any proof to the contrary, regardless of what additional evidence may be introduced.
These presumptions are also referred to as “irrebuttable” presumptions.

B. Enumerations under the Current Rule

Under Section 2, Rule 131, the following are recognized as conclusive presumptions:

Estoppel in Pais (Estoppel by Conduct).
- Whenever a party has, by his or her own act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true and to act upon that belief, the former is not allowed to deny the truth of that thing in any suit or proceeding between the parties or their privies.
- Example: A landlord-tenant relationship where the tenant has acknowledged the landlord’s title over the property. The tenant is estopped from later denying the landlord’s title.
The Validity of a Final Judgment
- The rule that a judgment, once it becomes final and executory, is conclusive as to the issues and parties involved.
- The principle of res judicata bars the reopening of matters settled in a final judgment.

Practical Effect of Conclusive Presumptions

Because these presumptions cannot be rebutted by evidence to the contrary, they effectively decide the fact or the issue once established. Parties can no longer contest the presumed fact in court after the presumption has attached.

IV. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS (Section 3 of Rule 131)

A. Nature and Definition

Disputable presumptions (also called “rebuttable presumptions”) are those which the law declares exist and are valid until overturned by contrary evidence.
They are meant to reflect common experience or strong likelihoods (e.g., that a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns, that official duty has been regularly performed, etc.).

B. General Rule

When the facts giving rise to a disputable presumption are established, the burden of evidence shifts to the party against whom the presumption operates. That party must adduce sufficient evidence to rebut or overcome the presumption; otherwise, the presumed fact or conclusion stands.

C. Enumerations under Section 3, Rule 131

Below are the disputable presumptions under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence. Each presumption can be overcome by evidence proving the contrary.

That a person is innocent of crime or wrong.
- Fundamental principle reflecting the presumption of innocence even in civil or administrative contexts unless there is adequate proof of wrongdoing.
That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent.
- If an act is proven unlawful, it is presumed that it was done with an unlawful intent. This places the burden on the actor to show justification or excuse.
That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act.
- Reflects the common-sense notion that acts produce their natural consequences, implying the doer’s intent aligns with those consequences.
That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns.
- A presumption that individuals exercise due diligence or reasonable care in handling their affairs.
That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
- If a party withholds evidence within its control, the law presumes such evidence would be unfavorable to that party.
- Caveat: To invoke this presumption, it must be shown that the evidence is deliberately suppressed and that it is not merely lost or otherwise made unavailable despite good faith efforts.
That money paid by one to another was due to the latter.
- If a person makes a payment to another, it is presumed the payment was for a valid and existing debt or obligation, absent evidence that it was gratuitous or mistaken.
That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter.
- Similar reasoning: if property is knowingly placed in someone’s possession, it is presumed the possessor has the right to it, unless proven otherwise.
That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid.
- If a promissory note or any evidence of obligation is found in the debtor’s possession or is surrendered to the debtor, the legal presumption is that the obligation has been settled.
That prior rents or installments have been paid when a receipt for the latest is produced without reservation.
- If there is a receipt for the most recent rent or installment and it does not contain any reservation about non-payment of earlier installments, those prior obligations are presumed paid.
That a person is the owner of property if he exercises acts of ownership over it.

Continuous, open, and consistent acts of dominion over property generally raise the presumption of ownership, subject to rebuttal by those claiming a better right.

That official duty has been regularly performed.

Courts presume that public officers properly discharge their official duties absent affirmative evidence of irregularity or malfeasance.

That a court or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.

There is a presumption of regularity in the exercise of judicial functions.

That private transactions have been fair and regular.

Ordinary commercial or private transactions are presumed to be carried out in good faith and within normal course, unless shown otherwise.

That the ordinary course of business has been followed.

If a party proves that a transaction is one commonly carried out in a regular manner, it is presumed it was so conducted.

That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract.

A written contract is presumed to have a lawful and sufficient cause or consideration. The burden is on the party challenging the validity or sufficiency of consideration to prove otherwise.

That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration.

Reflects the commercial policy favoring negotiable instruments and their regularity, absent contrary evidence.

That the signature on a written instrument is genuine.

If a writing is produced bearing a person’s signature, it is presumed authentic unless proven otherwise (e.g., through forgery analysis, questioned documents examination, etc.).

That a writing was truly dated.

The date appearing on an instrument is presumed correct unless evidence shows a different date of execution.

That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of mail.

The presumption that mailing leads to delivery. The addressee is presumed to have received a properly addressed letter placed in the mail, unless proven otherwise.

That after an absence of seven (7) years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.

The Civil Code has detailed provisions on presumptive death and periods, but the Rules on Evidence also reflect a presumption of death after a certain period of absence.
Note: Under the Civil Code, the rules on presumptive death for succession have varying time frames depending on circumstances. Rule 131’s mention is consistent with the general rule that continuous absence raises the presumption of death after a statutory period.

That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the right or fact.

If a person acquiesces or remains silent or inactive despite knowledge of an actionable wrong, it is presumed that such person believed there was no wrongdoing or that the situation was rightful.

Other Presumptions

The rule enumerates other recognized disputable presumptions reflective of common human experiences or necessary legal policies. These can include situations regarding possession, parentage, or the legitimacy of a child if born within wedlock, among others.

(In some editions or references, the enumerations may appear in slightly different numbering or combined statements, but these items capture the general scope of the disputable presumptions under Section 3.)

V. LEGAL EFFECT AND APPLICATION

Shifting of the Burden of Evidence
- Once a party establishes foundational facts that trigger a disputable presumption, the burden to rebut or overcome shifts to the other side.
Quantum of Evidence to Overcome
- Generally, the opposing party must present preponderant (in civil cases) or clear and convincing (in some special civil actions) evidence, or evidence that meets the required quantum in criminal or administrative contexts, to rebut the presumption.
No Presumption if Basic Foundational Facts Are Not Proved
- A disputable presumption does not arise unless the party invoking it shows that the conditions or facts giving rise to it are present.
Conclusive Presumptions Bind Courts
- Courts have no discretion to disregard conclusive presumptions once they are shown to apply. They must treat the presumed fact as indisputably true.
Interaction with Other Rules
- Other provisions in the Rules of Court, the Civil Code (e.g., presumptions of survivorship and death), and special laws may supplement or modify certain presumptions.
Estoppel and Presumption
- Conclusive presumptions often overlap with estoppel doctrines (e.g., estoppel in pais). Once a party is estopped, the law does not permit contradictory evidence to disprove the fact that has been conclusively presumed.

VI. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE NOTES

People v. Sunga, G.R. No. 233975 (2020) – Reiterates the principle that “official duty is presumed to have been regularly performed.” This is often invoked in criminal cases involving law enforcers.
Heirs of Manguiat v. Court of Appeals – Emphasizes that “a written contract is presumed supported by consideration” (a common theme in civil cases).
Domingo v. Court of Appeals – Clarifies how the presumption of “innocence of crime or wrong” is more commonly recognized in criminal cases, but also resonates in civil contexts where wrongdoing is alleged.
Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo – Demonstrates that “possession raises the presumption of ownership,” but can be rebutted by proof of superior right.

(Case citations are illustrative. The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed how these presumptions shift the burden and guide fact-finding.)

VII. PRACTICAL POINTERS

Plead and Prove Foundational Facts: If you want to invoke a disputable presumption, show the basic facts on which the presumption is based.
Rebut with Competent Evidence: To overcome a presumption, introduce credible, substantial evidence that directly contradicts or explains away the presumed fact.
Leverage Conclusive Presumptions Early: If a conclusive presumption (like estoppel in pais) clearly applies, highlight it promptly because the court cannot disregard it once proven.
Document Preservation: To avoid adverse inferences under the principle that “evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse,” ensure transparency and preserve relevant evidence.
Know Overlapping Rules: Some presumptions (e.g., presumption of death) overlap with Civil Code provisions. Check the correct time periods and contexts to apply them properly.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Rule 131 on Presumptions is a vital component of Philippine remedial law on evidence. It affects how courts allocate the burden of proof and burden of evidence, and it codifies widely held inferences that reflect human experience and policy considerations. Mastery of these presumptions—both conclusive and disputable—enables litigators to strategically present or refute claims and defenses.

Conclusive Presumptions render certain facts incontrovertible once established (e.g., estoppel in pais, final judgments).
Disputable Presumptions are numerous and provide critical shortcuts in trial, shifting the burden to the opposing side to prove the contrary.
In applying these presumptions, courts weigh the sufficiency of evidence and remain guided by the overarching principle of due process—granting every party the opportunity to overcome presumptions when the facts warrant it.

Understanding and properly invoking or rebutting the presumptions under Rule 131 can decisively shape the outcome of litigation, making them an essential tool for any legal practitioner in the Philippines.