Spain's Supreme Court rules on acknowledgement of debt as a formal claim for payment
Published on 21st July 2025
Ruling finds the Provincial Court's decision incorrect as the plaintiff was not required to prove the reason for the debt
The Supreme Court in its ruling (309/2025) dated 26 February addressed the concept of the acknowledgement of debt regarding the burden of proof. The ruling upheld the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the ruling made in the first instance.
The reasoning relied on the doctrine of acknowledgement of debt and the presumption of both the existence and legality of the contractual cause, as outlined in article 1277 of the Civil Code.
Procedural background
The claimant initiated summary proceedings to recover a total of €316,000 including interest and costs. This claim arose from a debt acknowledgement document that the defendant signed on 5 June 2016, which related to various items totalling €786,000 euros. The total amount sought was €316,000, divided into two parts: €48,000 for logistical, legal and business consultancy services, and €268,000 for a breach of contract related to the purchase of jewellery.
In response, the defendant denied any knowledge of such a document and questioned the validity of the claimed debt. Regarding the €48,000, the defendant argued that there was no professional engagement and noted that no supporting documentation was provided, including contracts, invoices or proof of complete work. In addition, concerning the remaining €268,000, the defendant emphasised the lack of evidence, stating that the plaintiff had failed to deliver any proof to validate the claimed contract for the sale of jewellery.
The court of first instance fully upheld the plaintiff's claim. In turn, the defendant submitted an appeal. The Provincial Court of Madrid partially granted the appeal, reversing the original judgement and ordering the defendant to pay a total of € 48,000.
A formal appeal was submitted challenging this decision.
Supreme Court ruling
In its interpretation, the Supreme Court stated that article 1277 of the Civil Code establishes a reversal of the burden of proof. This means that when a debtor acknowledges a debt, they are obligated to fulfil that acknowledgement unless they can prove that the obligation does not exist or is illegal. In the case under review, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the validity and enforceability of the acknowledgement of debt.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Provincial Court's reasoning regarding the burden of proof was incorrect, as the plaintiff is not required to prove the reason for the debt.
Osborne Clarke comment
According to the criteria established in case law, a creditor who has an acknowledgement of debt that does not specify the reason for the debt, or does so in a vague manner, can claim payment without needing to demonstrate the obligation that gives rise to the duty to pay. If the defendant disputes this claim, it is their responsibility to prove that no such prior obligation exists or that it is not valid or effective.
