Undischarged burden

A party to a case who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. This rule is once more applied in this case of Lumeng, 79 years old.

The case involves a parcel of rice land which was purchased by the spouses Fidel and Elena from Lumeng who is Fidel’s auntie. The purchased land is evidenced by a notarized Deed of Sale dated November 24, 1989. Since they purchased it the spouses had been in continuous and peaceful possession of the land and receiving its produce and fruits. In fact the land was already transferred and registered in their names.

But sometime in 1992 their auntie Lumeng filed a complaint before the Regional Trail Court to declare the Deed of Sale null and void. She claimed that the land was transferred to Fidel and Elena without her knowledge and consent and that Fidel tricked her into signing said Deed by inserting it among the documents she signed pertaining to the transfer of her residential land, house and camarin in favor of her foster child Dado. In her complaint she alleged that "She only read the document on top of the other several copies and found the same to be the deed in favor of Dado" but Fidel interspersed the Deed of Sale dated November 24, 1989 and made her believe that they are just other copies of the deed in favor of Dado. Yet when she testified in court she insisted that being 79 years old when she signed the questioned deed, she was unable to read and understand English language used therein. Thus she cites Article 1332 of the Civil Code which states that "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 her. So according to Lumeng, even if the questioned deed was notarized, the presumption of due execution does not apply. Was Lumeng correct?

No. Lumeng’s testimony that she cannot read is inconsistent with her allegations in her complaint where she said that "she read the document on top of the several other copies… These contradictory statements do not establish the fact that Lumeng was unable to read and understand the English language. A party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving. There being no other evidence to support her bare allegations, Lumeng failed to satisfactorily establish her inability to read and understand the English language. Consequently, the provisions of Article 1332 do not apply.

Besides, documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than preponderant. The burden of proof to overcome this presumption lies on the one contesting the same who, in this case, is Lumeng. But she failed to discharge this burden (De la Cruz etc. vs. Spouses Sison, G.R. 163770, February 17, 2005. 451 SCRA 754).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]