Extraordinary Presumptions
by admin
The following are presumptions which are somewhat extraordinary as it border on the negative aspects such as fraud, negligence and guilt although some of the presumptions are with prior established basic facts.
Presumed Fraudulent. Article 1387 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that all contracts by virtue of which the debtor alienates property by gratuitous title are presumed to have been entered into in fraud of creditors, when the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay all debts contracted before the donation.
Likewise, alienations by onerous title are also presumed fraudulent when made by persons against whom some judgment has been issued. The decision or attachment need not refer to the property alienated, and need not have been obtained by the party seeking the rescission.
Presumed Unconstitutional. Only unprotected expression may be subject to prior restraint. However, any such prior restraint on unprotected expression must hurdle a high barrier. First, such prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional. Second, the government bears a heavy burden of proving the constitutionality of the prior restraint. (Chavez v. Gonzales, 2008) Basic fact: That there exists an unprotected expression.
Presumed Negligent.
- Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, unless there is proof to the contrary, a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (Guillang v. Bedania, 2009) Basic fact: That he was violating a traffic regulation.
- In case of death or injuries to passengers, Art. 1756 of the Civil Code provides that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as defined in Arts. 1733 and 1755 of the Code. (Calalas v. Court of Appeals, 2000)
- A common carrier is presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove that it exercised extraordinary vigilance over the goods it transported. When the goods shipped are either lost or arrived in damaged condition, a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that diligence, and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable. (RCL of Singapore v. The Netherlands Insurance Co., 2009) Basic fact: That goods shipped were either lost or damaged.
- If motor vehicle is lost inside a repair shop which shop is not registered with the DTI and is not covered by an insurance policy, the presumption of negligence applies. (Co v. Court of Appeals, 1998) Basic facts: That the repair shop is not registered and has no insurance policy.
- Negligence of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. (Jose v. Court of Appeals, 2000) Basic fact: That the employee is negligent.
Presumed Intent to Kill. If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. (Quinto v. Andres, 2005) Basic fact: That the act be deliberate or intentional.
Presumed Guilty. A person in possession of a stolen article is presumed guilty of having illegally and unlawfully taken the same unless he can satisfactorily explain his possession of the thing. (People v. Garcia, 2003) Basic fact: Establish that the article in possession was a stolen article. ##
—
