By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA

The burden to prove payment

Under the rules of evidence, since petitioner pleads payment, it 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. The Court has consistently held that the party alleging payment must necessarily
prove his or her claim of payment.
This is the ruling in the case of Sioland Development Corp. v. Fair Distribution
Center Corp., G.R. No. 199539, August 9, 2023.
In claiming full payment, petitioner makes reference to the alleged agreement with
respondent that all outstanding obligations must be paid within 21 days, otherwise, no
subsequent deliveries will be made. Thus, petitioner insists that the deliveries it received in
December 2007 were duly paid because respondent continued to deliver goods for the
months of January, February, March, and April 2008. To further prove payment, petitioner
avers that respondent paid them the 1% Target Achievement Incentive for having achieved
the target sales and having duly paid such sales. The payment of incentive was made by
check, covered by a check voucher issued in petitioner’s favor.
Petitioner’s claims are empty.
Although petitioner, as the defaulting party, did not have the chance to present its
evidence, it however did not mention any receipt, other than the check voucher for the Target
Achievement Incentive to show payment of the merchandise it purchased from respondent.
The alleged succeeding deliveries made to petitioner do not equate to payment of previous
deliveries. To reiterate, the best evidence to prove payment of the goods is an official receipt.
In Towne & City Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that:
In the case at bar, petitioner has relied on vouchers to prove its defense
of payment. However, as correctly pointed out by the trial court which the
appellate court upheld, vouchers are not receipts.
It should be noted that a voucher is not necessarily an evidence of
payment. It is merely a way or method of recording or keeping track of
payments made. A procedure adopted by companies for the orderly and proper
accounting of funds disbursed. Unless it is supported by an actual payment
like the issuance of a check which is subsequently encashed or negotiated, or
an actual payment of cash duly receipted for as is customary among
businessmen, a voucher remains a piece of paper having no evidentiary
weight. SDHTEC
A receipt is a written and signed acknowledgment that money has
been or goods have been delivered, while a voucher is documentary
record of a business transaction. (Emphases supplied)
Consequently, allegations of payment, without any concrete proof thereof in the form
of receipts, remain to be unsubstantiated claims. It must be emphasized that a voucher is not
necessarily evidence of payment. It is merely a way or method of recording or keeping track
of payments made. It must be supported by an actual payment of cash duly receipted for as
is customary among businessmen or the issuance of a check subsequently encashed. A
“receipt” remains to be the written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in money or other
settlement between seller and buyer of goods, debtor or creditor, or person rendering services
and client or customer.
Indeed, an obligation may be extinguished by payment, however, two requisites must
concur: (1) identity of the prestation, and (2) its integrity. The first means that the very thing
due must be delivered or released; and the second, that the prestation be fulfilled completely.
Here, respondent must “receive and acknowledge full payment” from the petitioner. No such

acknowledgment nor proof of full payment was shown to the satisfaction of the court. For
this reason, claim of payment made by the petitioners must fail. SAcaE
The Court, thus, sustains the finding that petitioner is liable for the unpaid obligation
in the sum of P800,894.27, plus legal interest from the date of demand on September 8, 2008.
Based on the recent ruling in Lara’s Gifts & Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc.,
and in view of the absence of any stipulation by the parties on the penalty that may be
imposed for nonpayment, the interest shall be fixed at six percent (6%) per annum from
September 8, 2008, the date of extrajudicial demand, until full payment. Since respondent did
not appeal the judgment award, the Court shall withhold imposing legal interest (“interest on
interest”) pursuant to Art. 2212 of the Civil Code. However, the total monetary award shall
be subject to 6% interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until full payment.
(cdasiaonline)