Understanding Factum Probandum in Philippine Evidence Law

A comprehensive doctrinal and practical guide

1. Concept and Origins

Latin term	Literal meaning	Modern Filipino legal usage
Factum Probandum	“the fact to be proven”	The ultimate or principal fact which a party must establish—e.g., the existence of a crime, a contractual breach, negligence, paternity, etc.
Factum Probans	“the fact proving”	The evidentiary or subordinate facts (testimony, documents, objects, circumstances) tendered to prove the factum probandum.

The distinction comes from Roman‐canon procedure and was absorbed into common‑law evidence theory. Philippine courts, applying Rule 128 (General Provisions) of the Rules of Court, treat “facts in issue” as synonymous with factum probandum, while “relevant evidence” corresponds to factum probans.

2. Statutory Anchors in the Rules of Court

Rule	Key provisions touching on factum probandum
Rule 128, §3	Defines a fact in issue—the precise factum probandum admitted or denied in the pleadings.
Rule 129 (Admissions & Judicial Notice)	If a factum probandum is admitted in pleadings or during pre‑trial, evidence on it becomes unnecessary.
Rule 130, §4	Evidence admissibility hinges on relevance to a fact in issue (i.e., the factum probandum).
Rule 133 (Weight of Evidence)	Sets the quantum of proof required to establish factum probandum—moral certainty in criminal cases, preponderance in civil cases, substantial evidence in administrative proceedings.

3. Pleadings: Ultimate vs. Evidentiary Facts

Civil complaints and answers must allege the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action or defense (2019 Amendments to Rules 6 & 8).
Evidentiary facts (factum probans) need not be pleaded; they are disclosed through discovery and trial.
Case law: Spouses Toring v. Ganzon, G.R. 190706 (4 Apr 2012) held that dismissal is proper when the complaint states mere conclusions without ultimate facts—no factum probandum alleged.

4. Criminal Informations

Informations must allege the ultimate elements of the offense (factum probandum): People v. Dizon, G.R. 215438 (26 Jan 2021).
Evidentiary details like the number of blows, caliber of firearm, or chain of custody are factum probans and may be supplied later.
A variance between the information (factum probandum) and proof offered (factum probans) can violate the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation.

5. Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Doctrine	Interaction with factum probandum
Burden of pleading & proof	The plaintiff/prosecution bears both as to each essential factum probandum. Once a prima facie case is made, the burden of evidence may shift.
Disputable presumptions (Rule 131)	Presumptions convert certain factum probans into prima facie proof of a factum probandum (e.g., possession of recently stolen goods → presumption of theft).
Judicial notice (§1, Rule 129)	When a court takes notice of a fact, it removes that factum probandum from the realm of proof.

6. Circumstantial Evidence and the “Chain” Concept

Philippine jurisprudence often frames a case built on circumstances as a “chain where the links are factum probans leading to a single factum probandum.”

Elements: (a) multiple circumstances, (b) proven beyond reasonable doubt, (c) combined they lead to a moral certainty of guilt.
Leading cases: People v. Andaya, G.R. 116236 (3 Oct 1996); People v. Malngan, G.R. 173476 (4 Jul 2012).

7. Evidentiary Admissions and Stipulations

Judicial admissions under Rule 129, §4 remove the admitted factum probandum from contention.
During pre‑trial, parties may stipulate on factum probandum (e.g., identity of parties, authenticity of documents) to shorten trial.
An admission of a factum probans does not necessarily admit the factum probandum it tends to prove unless expressly stated.

8. Relationship to Other Doctrines

Area	Relevance to factum probandum
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur	The event itself (e.g., a falling object in a hospital) can be both factum probandum (negligence) and prima facie factum probans.
Judgment on the Pleadings / Demurrer	Granted when the opposing party’s pleadings fail to contest a material factum probandum or when evidence shows the plaintiff failed to establish one.
Impeachment of witnesses	Concerns credibility of factum probans, leaving the underlying factum probandum intact unless credibility is fatally undermined.

9. Administrative and Quasi‑Judicial Proceedings

Fact‑finding bodies apply substantial evidence (amount of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept) to support each factum probandum.
Ang Tibay v. CIR (G.R. 46496, 27 Feb 1940) laid down the “cardinal primary rights,” including the necessity of evidence on record to back factum probandum.

10. Practical Litigation Tips

Draft pleadings around ultimate facts. Ask: What specific factum probandum must I establish under the substantive law?
Map evidence early. Create a matrix matching every required factum probandum with available or anticipated factum probans.
Beware of over‑pleading. Detailing evidence in the complaint can lock a party into a theory and invite denials.
Leverage stipulations. Secure admissions on non‑controversial factum probandum to narrow trial issues.
Use presumptions strategically. Identify statutory presumptions that shift the burden regarding difficult‑to‑prove factum probandum.
Prepare for demurrer. Anticipate an adverse demurrer by ensuring that each factum probandum already has at least prima facie support by the close of the plaintiff’s evidence.

11. Key Supreme Court Decisions (selected)

Case	G.R. No.	Date	Holding related to factum probandum
People v. Flores	115635	11 Apr 2002	Circumstantial evidence forming an unbroken chain established the factum probandum of rape‑with‑homicide.
Heirs of Malate v. Gamboa	156188	22 Aug 2012	Complaints must allege ultimate facts; absence thereof means factum probandum not properly pleaded.
People v. Uy	195068	24 Jan 2018	Possession of shabu gave rise to presumption of illegal possession—factum probans satisfying factum probandum absent rebuttal.
Alba v. Yupangco	219935	10 Jan 2023	In a civil case for damages, moral and exemplary damages are separate factum probandum requiring distinct proof.

12. Conclusion

Understanding factum probandum is indispensable for Filipino litigators, judges, and law students—it is the fulcrum upon which the entire evidence system pivots. Mastery of the concept enables:

precise pleading of causes of action and defenses;
efficient evidence presentation;
proper invocation (or rebuttal) of presumptions;
sharper appreciation of burdens of proof; and
persuasive argumentation in trial and appellate practice.

By clearly distinguishing what must be proven from how it will be proven, advocates can navigate the Rules of Court with clarity and purpose, ensuring that justice is grounded on facts duly and properly established.

Understanding Factum Probandum in Philippine Evidence Law