OFFICIA L'G AZE TTE . • \VoL. 64, N o. 33 . plaintiff admitted the payment to it of $3,530.00 by the de fendant on the account in controversy. Defe ndant, relies ‘ up on its Exhibit 9- A to suppo rt it s cla im tha t, it had al ready paid the plaintiff th e amount of $14,839.85 on account of the value of the merchandise thereby leaving a balanceof only $7, 858. 37. It is to be noted that Exhibit 9- A ismerely a statement of accountability of the account in ques tion prepared by defendant's accountant and attached todefendant's letter of June 25,19 54 (Exhibit 9) to its ag ent, Mur ray' Kern, in New York, XI.S.A. Certainl y, th is state ment of accountability, which was never confirmed by theplaintiff, is not the best evidence, of payment by the defend ant of the obligation in question to the extent specifiedtherein. In fact, it is to be noted that the correctness of said statement of accountability was even repudiated bydefendant’s own agent, Murray Kern, to whom it was sent. (Dep osition of-K ern , Questi on. No. 6 and answer, Cross-, interrogatories, Exhibit D.) Undoubtedly, the best evidenceto prove payment would be receipts showing the same. Other evidence may be presented in lieu thereof, if suchreceipts are not available. The fac t of payment may a lso be established, not only by documentary evidence, but also by parol evidence specially in civil cases where preponde rance of evidence is the rule. (Montfort vs. Aguinal do, L-4104, May 2, 1952. Allegations of payme nt,. however, are special defenses and the defendant has the burden of proving the alleged payment* by a preponderance of evi dence.- (Kneedler v s . Paterno, et al, 85 Phil. 189; Vda. de Atas v s . Hautea, CA-G.R. No. 636-R, June 17, 1947.) In the case at bar, however, no receipts or other satisfactory evidence was presented by the defendant to prove its al leged . payme nt in question to th e plaintiff. ' Considering that.the plaintiff has satisfactorily proven the existence of defendant’s obligation, the burden of proof was upon saiddefend ant to show th at it had been discharged. (Behn, Meyer &Co. vs . Rosatzin, 5 Ph il. 662. ) This, the de fend ant has failed to d o in the instant case. We see, therefore, no reason why the findings of the lower c ourt on this regard should be disturbed. * § Wherefore ,finding the judgment appealed from to be in accordance with-Jaw and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed in tato, with costs against defendant-appellant. . I t i s s o ordered .
