You're currently signed in as:
User

MANOLITO DE LEON v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2015-01-14
PEREZ, J.
In all, Rivera's evidence or lack thereof consisted only of a barefaced claim of forgery and a discordant defense to assail the authenticity and validity of the Promissory Note. Although the burden of proof rested on the Spouses Chua having instituted the civil case and after they established a prima facie case against Rivera, the burden of evidence shifted to the latter to establish his defense.[21] Consequently, Rivera failed to discharge the burden of evidence, refute the existence of the Promissory Note duly signed by him and subsequently, that he did not fail to pay his obligation thereunder. On the whole, there was no question left on where the respective evidence of the parties preponderated in favor of plaintiffs, the Spouses Chua.