One thing nice about the law is proof and presumption. As we lawyers always say, one who alleges must prove. A party cannot just make a bare assertion and expect the court to believe him. Rather, to be credible, he must show concrete evidence of what he is alleging.

As I always tell my clients, treat the court like a little child still learning the basics in life. For the court to “appreciate” any statement made, this must always be accompanied by something, be it a document or object, that establishes the claim. Aside from this, our rules go by certain presumptions. Once a disputable presumption arises, the opposing party is duty bound to overcome it. If unable to do so, the presumption stays and works against him.

Today, I wish to discuss with you the interplay of proof and presumption with regard to an inheritance issue. Here we have a case where the sister-in-law wanted to have a share in what the sole heir, her brother-in-law, inherited from his parents. She alleged that her deceased husband was the brother of that heir. Accordingly, being siblings, both were equally entitled to the inheritance from their parents. Since her husband had passed away, by right of representation, she and her children were entitled to what her deceased husband would have received.

The sole heir disputed this, claiming that while he and his brother had the same mother, the latter was the son of his mother’s subsequent husband. Therefore, his sister-in-law and her children were not entitled to whatever he received from his father. When he was haled into court by his sister-in-law, the battle of proof began.

The heir made an issue of the late registration of the birth of his brother, claiming it to be self-serving.

After the parties presented their sides, the trial court ruled in favor of the sister-in-law, entitling her and her children to a portion of the inheritance the sole heir received. Naturally, he appealed to the next tier court.

The Court of Appeals, however, did not agree with him. Rather, it affirmed the findings of the trial court. Still dissatisfied, he elevated the matter to the last bulwark of justice — the Supreme Court, hoping to get a reversal. Unfortunately for him, he still was not favored with the prayer he wanted. Here is how the Supreme Court decided the case, with a good discussion on proof and presumptions.

“Juanito claims to be the only son of Anatolio and Rosario. Juanito et al. claimed before the RTC that Anatolio died in 1942, two years before Franklin was allegedly born in 1944. Maria et al., however, presented several witnesses and documentary evidence to prove that Anatolio died in 1944. Conversely, Juanito testified that he did not seek proof of his father’s date of death and relied only on the word of others. Both the RTC and the CA agreed that Maria et al. had sufficiently proven that Anatolio died in 1944.

Tison explains that this doctrine prevents the status of a child from being in a state of uncertainty since an attack on legitimacy may only be done within the periods and upon the grounds provided by law.

“It is well established that the Court is not a trier of facts. The Court’s function in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts or tribunals. It is not this Court’s function to analyze or weigh evidence that have already been considered in the lower courts, especially in this case where the RTC and CA agree as to the sufficiency of the evidence presented. At this stage of the proceedings, it must be beyond debate that Anatolio died on 4 April 1944.

“Juanito et al. mainly question the RTC’s appreciation of Franklin’s birth certificate, which was belatedly registered in 1993. Juanito et al. assert that the RTC erred in admitting Franklin’s birth certificate because the same was acquired through delayed registration and applied for by Franklin alone, without any other person attesting to his date of birth. (To be continued)