G.R. No. 187487 - GO TONG ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO., INC. AND GEORGE C. GO, VS. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE [SPV-AMC], INC.,*.

Ruling

Accordingly, with petitioners' admission of the genuineness and due execution of the loan documents as above-discussed, the competence of respondent's witness Suñio to testify in order to authenticate the same is therefore of no moment. As the Court similarly pointed out in Permanent Savings & Loan Bank , "[w]hile Section [20], [51] Rule 132 of the [Rules] requires that private documents be proved of their due execution and authenticity before they can be received in evidence, i.e. , presentation and examination of witnesses to testify on this fact; in the present case, there is no need for proof of execution and authenticity with respect to the loan documents because of respondent's implied admission thereof ." [52] The Court clarifies that while the "[f]ailure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against it by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel and want of consideration [nor] bar a party from raising the defense in his answer or reply and prove at the trial that there is a mistake or imperfection in the writing, or that it does not express the true agreement of the parties, or that the agreement is invalid or that there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing," [53] none of these defenses were adequately argued or proven during the proceedings of this case. Of particular note is the affirmative defense of payment raised during the proceedings a quo . While petitioners insisted that they had paid, albeit partially, their loan obligation to respondent, the fact of such payment was never established by petitioners in this case. Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden rests on the defendant, i.e. , petitioners, to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff, i.e. , respondent, to prove non-payment. When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, proof of non-payment is not needed for it is presumed. [54] Here, respondent's possession of the Credit Agreement, PN, and CSA, especially with their genuineness and due execution already having been admitted, cements its claim that the obligation of petitioners has not been extinguished. Instructive too is the Court's disquisition in Jison v. CA [55] on the evidentiary burdens attendant in a civil proceeding, to wit: Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and n