Doctrine: Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of

Doctrine: Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of

proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden
rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. When
the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove nonpayment for it is
presumed. The creditor’s possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been
discharged by payment.
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (now BDO UNIBANK, INC.)

vs.
ARTURO P. FRANCO, substituted by his heirs, namely: MAURICIA P. FRANCO,
FLORIBEL P. FRANCO, AND ALEXANDER P. FRANCO
G.R. No. 180069 March 5, 2014
THIRD DIVISION, PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent who was 51 years old then decided to save up for his retirement and to invest
his hard earned money. He chose to deposit his savings with PCIB primarily because of the
latters representation that by making such investment, he was actually providing for his future
since his investment would be commingled, pooled and automatically rolled-over for better
investment return and which will provide for his needs upon retirement, without need for him to
take any further action. Respondent secured from the bank several Trust Indenture Certificates.
Sometime in 1995, Respondent discovered that one of his children had leukemia and in
the ensuing hospitalization and treatment, plaintiff spent a lot of money; that because his funds
were already exhausted, respondent then turned to his Trust Indenture Certificates and started
inquiring as to how he could liquidate the trust. In the beginning, the bank constantly asked for
time to look for his records and promised to have an answer before July 15, 1998. On June 22
however, respondent received a letter from bank’s counsel denying respondent request for
payment by stating that due to the conversion of all outstanding PCIBank trust indenture
accounts into common trust certificates, all such PCIBank trust indenture certificates have been
rendered null and void. PCIB also argues that the present action had already prescribed.
Respondent now prays for the payment of the amounts under the Trust Indenture Certificates,
plus interest, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE:
Is the respondent entitled for payment and other reliefs he seeks for?
HELD:
YES.
Petitioner Bank failed to adduce any documentary evidence to establish the alleged fact
that the four TICs were already paid or cancelled, or that respondent’s participation therein was
already withdrawn. With all these findings, the CA concluded that the claim of respondent is not
yet barred by prescription, since the maturity dates of the four TICs did not terminate the express
trust created between the parties. Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads
payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the
general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the
plaintiff to prove non-payment. When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he
need not prove non-payment for it is presumed. The creditor’s possession of the evidence of debt
is proof that the debt has not been discharged by payment.
In this case, respondents possession of the original copies of the subject TICs strongly
supports his claim that petitioner Banks obligation to return the principal plus interest of the
money placement has not been extinguished. The TICs in the hands of respondent is a proof of
indebtedness and a prima facie evidence that they have not been paid. Petitioner Bank could have
easily presented documentary evidence to dispute the claim, but it did not. In its omission, it may
be reasonably deduced that no evidence to that effect really exist. Worse, the testimonies of
petitioner Banks own witnesses, reinforce, rather than belie, respondent’s allegations of non-
payment.

Uploaded by

Uploaded by

Doctrine: Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (now BDO UNIBANK, INC.)

You might also like