Judicial Presumptions, Affirmative Defenses, and Evidence Admissibility

Judicial Presumptions: Conclusive and Rebuttable

A judicial presumption is a logical inference made by a judge where, once a fact has been established, it is very likely that another fact is true. This is a type of circumstantial evidence, representing the mental activity of inferring the truth of one fact based on another.

It comprises three essential elements: an ascertained fact, a logical link, and a presumed fact. Courts are expected to apply presumptions during the evaluation of evidence.

Presumptions can be categorized into two main types:

• Legal Presumptions: Established directly in the text of the law, these may be either conclusive or rebuttable.
• Judicial Presumptions: Created ad hoc by the court in consideration of the specific circumstances of a case.

Conclusive Presumptions (iuris et de iure)

With conclusive presumptions, the party affected cannot introduce evidence to prove that the law established is not true in the specific case, or that the logical link is not applicable. For example, fraud in a donation as defined in the Civil Code. The court cannot avoid applying this presumption.

Rebuttable Presumptions (iuris tantum)

Rebuttable presumptions allow the affected party to challenge the truth of the presumed fact and attempt to convince the judge otherwise. Generally, most presumptions are rebuttable. The party that may be negatively affected by the presumption may use new evidence to prove the non-existence of the presumed facts or that the logical link does not exist.

Types of Affirmative Defenses

Affirmative defenses are legal arguments that go against the facts alleged by the plaintiff, asserting new facts not previously introduced. These defenses are typically based on three categories of facts:

• Impeding Facts: These occur simultaneously with the constitutive facts alleged by the plaintiff, rendering the constitutive fact ineffective.
  Example: Nullity of a contract because the signatory was intoxicated at the time of signing.
• Extinguishing Facts: These occur subsequent to the constitutive facts.
  Example: Payment, where the debtor pays the owed money, and the legal procedure concludes.
• Excluding Facts: These are facts subsequent to the constitutive facts that, according to the law, cause the judicial protection of the substantive right to cease.
  Example: Expiry of time limitations in the Civil Code, or prescription of a substantive right.

A related concept is the Exceptio non adimpleti contractus, a situation where one party's non-performance excuses the other's, often linked to a statute of limitation.

Criteria for Evidence Admissibility

For evidence to be admissible in court, it must meet several criteria:

• Timely Submission and Proposal: Evidence must be presented and proposed in adherence to established time limitations.
• Relevance: There must be a clear relation between the evidence and the case. The proposed evidence must be significant to the case.
• Utility: The evidence must be useful in clarifying the facts of the case.
• Constitutional Acquisition: The process of obtaining evidence must respect fundamental rights.
• Legality: Illegally obtained evidence is that acquired by infringing any fundamental right established in Articles 14-29 of the Spanish Constitution (CE). If evidence is obtained by infringing other articles, it may still be admissible, but the party obtaining it will face legal consequences.