Differentiate factum probans vs. factum probandum.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Factum probandum and factum probans differ in that the former is the ultimate fact to be established, while the latter is the evidentiary fact used to prove it. Under Philippine evidence law, factum probandum refers to the fact in issue or
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What is the primary distinction between factum probandum and factum probans in the law of evidence?
Factum probandum refers to the ultimate fact or proposition sought to be established, whereas factum probans refers to the probative or evidentiary facts offered to prove it.
Which of the following best describes factum probandum in judicial litigation?
Factum probandum constitutes the ultimate fact in issue, such as an essential element of a cause of action or offense, that one party asserts and the opposing party denies.
Which of the following is an example of factum probans in a criminal prosecution for murder?
Factum probans consists of the actual testimonial, documentary, or object evidence presented during trial to establish the truth of a factum probandum.
How do factum probandum and factum probans interact during a court trial?
Choices available with full access.
If a plaintiff in a breach of contract suit presents a signed written agreement to prove the existence of a binding obligation, what legal role does the written agreement play?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Ultimate Facts
In civil and criminal litigation, ultimate facts refer to the essential and constitutive facts that directly form the legal basis of a cause of action or defense. They represent the principal facts upon which the entire right to relief rests, without which a complaint or defense would be legally insufficient. Conversely, evidentiary facts, or details of probative matter, are the supporting premises and details brought forth during trial to establish those ultimate facts. While pleadings state the ultimate facts, the presentation of evidentiary facts serves to convince the court of their truth.
2. Admissibility Requisites
For an item of evidence to be admissible in judicial proceedings, it must satisfy the dual requisites of relevance and competence. Relevance requires a rational relation between the offered evidence, or factum probans, and the disputed fact in issue, or factum probandum, such that it induces a reasonable belief in the existence or non-existence of that fact. If evidence does not tend to establish or disprove a fact in issue, it is considered irrelevant and inadmissible. Competence, meanwhile, dictates that the evidence must not be excluded by constitutional provisions, statutes, or procedural rules.
3. Evidence Versus Proof
Although often used interchangeably in ordinary discourse, evidence and proof are distinct legal concepts in remedial law. Evidence is the medium, sanction, or means sanctioned by the Rules of Court by which a matter of fact is established or disproven in a judicial proceeding. In contrast, proof is the ultimate effect, result, or conviction produced in the mind of the judge after evaluating the aggregate evidence presented. Thus, evidence acts as the tool or instrument, while proof represents the successful result of sufficient evidence establishing a fact in issue.