Chapter 2

Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning

A. Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof
- duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law
- basic rule: burden of proof lies upon him who asserts it
Application
- civil cases: plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegations of the
complaint; defendant has the burden of proving the material allegations in his
answer.
- administrative case: burden of proof that respondent committed the acts
complained of rests on the complainant.
- party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it; mere allegation is not evidence
Equipoise Doctrine
- when the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, or there is doubt on which
side preponderates, the decision should be against the party with the burden of
proof.
B. Evidence
Evidence
- means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Best Evidence Rule (Rule 130, section 3 of Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)
- applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry.
- If the issue is only W/N such document was actually executed, exists, etc., the
best evidence rule does not apply. Testimony evidence is admissible. Any other
substitutionary evidence is admissible without need to account for the original.
- Production of the original may be dispensed with whenever the opponent does
not bona fide dispute the contents.
C. Admissibility and Relevance
- Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the issue, and if it is not excluded by
provision of law or by the Rules of Court.
- Relevance: Evidence must have relation to the fact in issue.
- Evidence to believed must proceed not only from the witnesses but must be
credible in itself to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common
experience of mankind.

E. Testimony of Witnesses
Testimony
- confined to personal knowledge, and excludes hearsay, except otherwise
provided under the Rules of Court.
Hearsay Rule
- A witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either
because he was told, he read or heard. Such is considered hearsay.
- Exceptions to the hearsay rule:
o Entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public
officer. Official entries are admissible regardless of w/n person who made
them was presented and testified in court. These are considered as prima
facie evidence.
o Reasons for this exception
Necessity inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the officials
attendance
Trustworthiness presumption of regularity of performance of duty
F. Expert Testimony
- Refers to statements made by individuals who are considered as experts in a
particular field
- Under the Rules of Court opinion of witness on a matter he is shown to
possess knowledge, skill, experience or training, may be received in evidence.
o A published treatise, periodical, or pamphlet is admissible if the court
takes judicial notice, or a witness expert testifies, that the writer in the
treatise etc. is recognized in his profession.
G. Examination
-

Under the Rules of Court the order in which an individual witness may be
examined is as follows:
a) Direct examination by the proponent examination-in-chief by party
presenting him
b) Cross-examination by the opponent as to any matters stated in the direct
examination to test his accuracy and truthfulness and bias, and elicit all
important facts
c) Re-direct examination by the proponent by the party calling him, to
explain or supplement his answers in the cross-examination. Matters not dealt
with during cross-examination may be allowed by the discretion of the court.
d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent as to the matters in the re-direct,
and other matters allowed by the court.
Without leave of court, witness cannot be recalled after examination of witness
A witness may be impeached by the opposing party by contradictory evidence,
by evidence that his general reputation is bad, or evidence of statements he has

made inconsistent with his testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful
acts, except it may be shown that he has been convicted of an offense.
If impeachment is to be done through evidence of statements, he must be asked
w/n he made such statements, and be allowed to explain. If the statement is
made in writing, it must be first shown to the witness.

H. Dependence on Precedents
-

Stare decisis et non quieta movere is the bedrock of precedents.

General rule: when a point has been settled by a decision, it becomes a
precedent which should be followed in subsequent cases before the same court.
The doctrine of adherence of precedents was applied in English courts adopted
in the United States.
This is embodied in Civil Code, Article 8 Judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
When a court has laid down a principle, and apply it to future cases, where facts
are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and the properties
are the same.
Only upon showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the
benefits derived by the judicial system, can the courts be justified in setting aside
the same.

Pesca v. Pesca
- FACTS: The petitioner and respondent were married and had four children.
Lorna filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity on the part of her husband. She alleged that he is
emotionally immature and irresponsible. He was cruel and violent. He was a
habitual drinker. Whenever she tells him to stop or at least minimize his drinking,
her husband would hurt her. There was even a time when she was chased by a
loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in the presence of their children. The
children also suffered physical violence. Petitioner and their children left the
home. Two months later, they returned upon the promise of respondent to
change. But he didnt. She was battered again. Her husband was imprisoned for
11 days for slight physical injuries. RTC declared their marriage null and void. CA
reversed RTCs ruling. Hence, this petition.
- ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in giving retroactive application to the doctrine laid out
in Santos v. CA and Republic v. CA and Molina?
- HELD: The Court found no merit in the petition. With stare decisis, the rule
follows the maxim - legis interpretado legis vim obtinet interpretation placed
upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law. The interpretation
establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. It is only when a
prior ruling of this Court finds itself overruled, and a different view is adopted that
the new doctrine may be applied prospectively in favor of the parties who had
relied on the old doctrine and acted in good faith.

Chapter 3
Deductive Reasoning in Law

A. Deduction and Induction

In Law
- Deductive reasoning determine w/n the correct rules of law were applied given
the facts or w/n the rules of evidence were properly applied in establishing the
facts.
- Inductive reasoning when we want to determine the facts of the case and to
establish them through causal arguments, probability or scientific methods.
The Difference
- Deductive - when our premises intend to guarantee the truth of our conclusion
o Conclusions are established by the premises with absolute certainty
o Conclusions flows from its premises with logical necessity
o Ex. If quartz scratches glass, then quartz is harder than glass.
Quartz scratches glass; Therefore, quartz is harder than glass.
- Inductive when our premises are intended to provide good (not conclusive)
evidence for the truth of our conclusion.
o Claim that conclusions are likely or probable given the premises
o Not provide an absolute guarantee of the conclusion
o If the premises are true then the conclusion will probably be true. But, it
cannot rule out the possibility of it being false.
o Ex. The car cant start even though there is plenty of gasoline. It is likely
that the battery is already exhausted.
How to differentiate (Indicator Words)
- It is sometimes said that deduction moves from general to particular premises
while induction moves from particular to general. This is not always the case.
- To determine if an argument is inductive or deductive, we use indicator words.
o Deductive indicators: certainly, definitely, it is logical to conclude, this
logically implies that
o Inductive indicators: probably, likely, chances are, one would expect, it is
plausible to suppose, it is reasonable to assume
- When no indicator words are used, we base it on is the conclusion intended to
follow with strict necessity from the premises or is it intended to simply follow
from the premises with a degree of probability.
B. Syllogisms
Syllogisms
- three-line argument that consists of exactly two premises and a conclusion.
- In criminal law the major premise should be the law; the minor premise, the act;
and conclusion, acquittal or condemnation
- Principle: What is true of the universal is true of the particular.
o Ex. Judicial power includes power to determine w/n there is GAD on the
part of any branch of government; The SC is granted judicial power;

Therefore, the SC can determine w/n there is GAD on the part of any
branch of government.
A well-constructed syllogism is well-supported with evidence.

Valid and Invalid Deductive Argument

- Valid: conclusion really does follow necessarily from the premises.
o If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
o Truth of the premise guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
o Ex. Mammals have lungs. Fish are mammals. Therefore, fish have lungs.
Although it has false premises and a false conclusion, it is valid.
- Example of invalid argument
o Ex. Chinese are Asians. Americans are not Chinese. Therefore,
Americans are not Asians.
Although true premises and conclusion, what determines its validity
is whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. If
yes, it is valid.
- Note: in inductive arguments, terms for appraisal are strong or weak
C. Types of Syllogisms
Types:
a) categorical syllogism composed of categorical statements
b) hypothetical composed of both categorical and hypothetical statements.
Categorical Statement
- statement that directly asserts something or states a fact without any conditions.
Its subject is simply affirmed or denied by the predicate
- Ex. The Philippines is not a communist state.
Hypothetical Statement
- compound statement which contains a proposed or tentative explanation.
- Consists of at least 2 clauses connected by conjunctions or adverbs, etc. which
express the relationship between classes.
- Ex. If a party to a contract fails to perform its obligation, then there is a breach of
contract.
D. Categorical Syllogism
- Ex. As are Bs. C is not a B. Therefore, C is not an A.
Properties of a Categorical Statement
- Every categorical statement has quality and quantity as its properties
- Quality affirmative or negative
o Negative: no, not, none, never
Ex. No one is above the law.
o Affirmative: absence of such qualifiers
Ex. The accused denied the charges.

Quantity universal or particular

o Universal what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is its
whole extension
Quantifier: all, every, each, no, none
Ex. All law students are holders of a college degree.
o Particular - what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is just a
part of its extension
Quantifier: some, most, several, few, almost all, not all, many
Ex. Some criminal offenses are heinous.

E. Quantity of the Predicate

- The predicate term has its own quantity, not identical nor dependent to the
subject term.
Rules in Determining Quantity
a) Predicate of an affirmative statement is generally particular.
- Ex. The Philippines is a democratic country.
- However, in statements where the subject and the predicate are identical, the
predicate is universal.
b) Predicate of a negative statement is always universal.
-Ex. Some senators are not lawyers.
F. Parts of a Categorical Syllogism
Three Kinds of Terms
- Minor term (S) the subject of the conclusion (subject term)
- Major term (P) the predicate of the conclusion (predicate term)
- Middle term (M) the term found in both premises to mediate the two terms
Three Kinds of Statements in a Categorical Syllogism
- Major premise contains major term
- Minor premise contains minor term
- Conclusion the statement the premises support
Example
M
P
All torts are civil wrongs. (major premise)
S
M
Negligence is a tort. (minor premise)
S
P
Therefore, negligence is a civil wrong. (conclusion)