Sei sulla pagina 1di 24

Prof. V. A.

Avena A2010

Best Evidence Rule incompetent, therefore not admissible (because the

defendant was saying that the best evidence in this FACTS
case is the entry and not the testimony) - Rafael Alunan and Pedro Hernaez formerly were
AIR FRANCE vs. CARRASCOSO registered owners in equal share of a land, 8
18 SCRA 155 HELD contiguous parcels with a combined area of 4,533.34
SANCHEZ; Sep 28, 1966 1. YES. The testimony of the defendant’s witnesses that sqm covered by TCT Nos. 46872-46880 and situated in
(athe) the issuance of first class ticket was no guarantee that the corner of Cortabitarte and Dewey Boulevard,
the passenger would have a first class ride, but such Manila. 8 residential houses were built on these lots but
NATURE: Review on certiorari would depend upon the availability of first class seat they were destroyed by war operations in the early part
cannot hold water. Oral evidence cannot prevail over of 1945.
FACTS written evidence, in this case, the first class tickets of In Feb. 1943, a deed of sale, on which Alunan's and
Carrascoso, a civil engineer, was a member of a group the plaintiff without any reservation whatever and even Hernaez names were signed as sellers and the
of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on marked with OK, meaning confirmed. Hakodate Dock Co., Ltd., a Japanese commercial firm,
March 30, 1958. 2. NO. The subject of inquiry is not the entry, but the as buyer, in consideration of P170,000, was presented
On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through ouster incident. Testimony of the entry does not come for registration in the office of register of deeds, and on
its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to within the proscription of the best evidence rule. Such March 3, TCT Nos. 66832-66839 in the name of the
plaintiff a 'first class' round trip airplane ticket from testimony is admissible. purchaser were issued in lieu of the old CT Nos. 53930-
Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff Besides, from a reading of the transcript just quoted, 53938, which were totally cancelled. On the strength of
traveled in 'first class', but at Bangkok, the Manager of when the dialogue happened, the impact of the this registration,the lots and all improvements still
the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the 'first startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be existing thereon were vested as property of an enemy
class' seat that he was occupying because, in the words felt. The excitement had not as yet died down. national by the PAPA, a US Government
of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, there was a 'white Statements then, in this environment, are admissible as instrumentality, In April 1947, under the authority of
man', who, the Manager alleged, had a 'better right to part of the res gestae. For, they grow "out of the the US Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, the
the seat. When asked to vacate his 'first class' seat, the nervous excitement and mental and physical condition Philippine Property Act of 1946, and Executive Order
plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused, and told of the declarant". The utterance of the purser No. 9818.
defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous, - The RP as the transferee of the property in litigation
his dead body; a commotion ensued; plaintiff and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. came into the case as intervenor on the side of the
reluctantly gave his 'first class' seat in the plane. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. It thus defendant. Dr. Nicanor Jacinto also filed a complaint in
After transferring to the tourist class seat, one flight escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part intervention but in opposition to the defendant as well
attendant approached him and requested from him his of the res gestae. as the plaintiffs. The questioned property has been
ticket and said that she will note of his transfer. He Moreover, if it were really true that no such entry was mortgaged to Jacinto before the outbreak of the war to
refused because for him it is tantamount to accepting made, the deposition of the purser could have cleared secure a promissory note for P160,000, and although
his transfer. Later, he went to the pantry that was next up the matter. the mortgage had been paid and cancelled in 1943, Dr.
to him and the purser was there. He told him that he Jacinto alleged that he had accepted the payment and
recorded the incident in his notebook. He read it and DISPOSITION: Decision of CA affirmed. agreed to the cancellation in fear of Japanese reprisal.
translated to him – because it was recorded in French. - The issue was complicated by the theft after
– "First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist liberation from the office of the register of deeds, of the
class against his will, and that the captain refused to HERNAEZ v McGRATH deed of sale, the transfer certificates of title by virtue
intervene." Carrascoso, during trial, included this TUASON; July 9, 1952 thereof, and other papers pertaining to the last
incident in his testimony. G.R. No. L-4044 registration. The plaitiff’s representation made
(jojo) determined and repeated efforts to block the attempts
ISSUES of appellants any oral evidence touching on the alleged
1. WON Carrascoso was entitled to the first class seat NATURE contents of the documents supposedly executed by
he claims - On action of ejectment and for damages Alunan and Hernaez in favor of the Hakodate, which
2. WON the CA erred in finding that the purser commenced in the CFI of Manila by Pedro C. Hernaez efforts were futile.
madean entry in his notebooks reading "First class and Asuncion de la Rama Vda. de Alunan, in her own - As maters stand, only one unsigned copy of the
passenger was forced to go to the tourist class behalf and as an administratix of the estate of her aforesaid deed, which had been secured from the file of
against his will, and that the captain refused to deceased husband, Rafael R. Alunan, against the the Hakodate home office in Hokaido, Japan, was
intervene" is predicated upon evidence which is Philippine Alien Property Administration (PAPA). introduced. Hakodate's signed copy is said to have

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

been lost or destroyed in the bombing of Tokyo in 1945 shortly after he had signed the deed of sale, he does sale and that after the registration he succeeded in
along with the company's office in that city. And the not know what happened to the copy of said document getting the certificates of title in the name of the
copy or the copies which had been kept by the notary which was delivered to Hakodate Dock. Ltd., that after vendee and delivered them to the latter. He says he did
public before whom the document was acknowledged he had returned to Tokyo, the document was forwarded not remember if his firm was the retained the counsel
had also been burned with his other papers during the to the Tokyo office, at the beginning of the following for the Hakodate Dock Co., nor is he sure where the
fight for liberation of Manila. As a result, defendant's year; that the duplicate original and the unsigned transaction took place. He would not be able to identify
proofs on the controverted execution of the lost deed copies thereof were kept in the Tokyo office; that the the document if only a copy thereof was shown to him.
are only the entries thereof in the registrar's office, duplicate original was burned when the Tokyo office He states that he does not remember if the transaction
collateral documents, and parol testimony, some direct, was bombed by the United States Airforce in 1945, but was a sale; all he remembers is that it was a
some circumstantial, but none precise or unequivocal in that a copy (made by the Hakodate Manila office) of the transaction between Hernaez and Alunan and the
term. duplicate original which was kept by the Manila Branch Hakodate Doc Ltd., and the papers were signed at his
- Hernaez was the lone witness on his behalf and for office was not destroyed and he brought it along when office at the Soriano Building by alunan and Hernaez,
his co-plaintiff. The gist of Hernaez' testimony is that if he came to the Philippines to testify; that he saw that as afar as he can recall. He recalls another transaction
any document was presented the register of deeds' copy of the first time in the Hokaido office of the of Hakode in which the preparation of the document
office purporting to have been executed by him and his Hakodate Dock Co. when he went there before coming was more or less entrusted to him by the Hakodate
co-owner, that document was a forgery. to the Philippines. Dock Co. He says that he was informed by Messrs.
Hernaez in part declared: "We were forced by the - Garcia, an assistant in the office of Atty. Recto, Hernaez and Alunan regarding the transaction that
Japanese to vacate the houses. They told me they declares that he was a notary public and recall that, as there had been an argument between them.
needed the property and I had to cooperate, such, he ratified a document in which Alunan and The trial Judge did not make express findings on
collaborate with them and I had no other alternative Hernaez and the Hakodate Dock. Ltd., were the parties; Watanabe's credibility, and referring to Garcia's and
but to sell my property. They detained at the Port Area and all the notarial copies were lost or destroyed; that Recto's testimony, noting that the same are beclouded
until midnight; it was midnight when they sent me back he made at least five copies of which he retained two with the phrases "it could have been", "it must have
to my house but they retained the titles. I think there and handed over the rest and the original to the been signed, in his presence". Moreover, the judge
were eight titles. They told me that I had to sign the parties; that Hakodate at least received one copy. He insinuated that Hakodate's signed copy existed at the
deed of sale. I had been expecting that they will appear says he did not remember to whom he delivered the time of the trial and had been suppressed, and acting
there to make me sign the deed of sale in my house or original. On cross-examination by the attorney for Dr. on this belief, disregarded all parol evidence by which
in the office of the Navy at Legaspi Landing, but what Jacinto, Garcia says that he does not know who the defendant had attempted to establish the
happened is that they did not appear in my house, and engaged his firm; he only knows that Recto requested genuineness of the deal. Said the court: There is no
afterwards I found out that Captain Tanabe (Watanabe, him to notarize the document. Nevertheless he recalls sufficient evidence on record to show the loss of all the
Hakodate's manager) was sent back to Tokyo." that the vendors were Hernaez and Alunan and the signed copies of the questioned document. Loss of the
- The principal witness for the defendant on the vendee the Hakodate Dock. Ltd, He says that the original and the signed copies must be satisfactorily
dispute sale were Satoru Watanabe, Napoleon Garcia documents were signed in his presence and that he established before secondary evidence can be
and Jose Ma. Recto. must have given Alunan or Hernaez a copy. He further admitted. Specially when the signatures on the
- Watanabe: testifies that he was in the Philippines in says he cannot exactly tell where the document was document is claimed to have been forged, it becomes
the early part of the war as acting manager of the ratified but that it must have been either in his office or absolutely necessary and indispensable the production
Manila Branch of the Hakodate Dock. Co., Ltd; that he in the office of the parties whether he went with his on original or a signed copy of the document. Thus, no
knew Hernaez and Alunan. He recalls the transaction notarial equipment. He thinks he says, that he went to secondary evidence can be entertained to prove the
between the Hackodate Dock Co., Ltd., on the one hand the office of Secretary Alunan in the old legislative document of the lost document, especially if the
and Hernaez and Alunan on the other, concerning the building. supposed document is contested to be falsified of
sale of the land and buildings located at the corner of - Recto: testifies that during the Japanese occupation forged.
Cortabitarte and Cavite (Dewey) Boulevard. He says his law office was on the 3rd floor of the Soriano RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and dismissed the
that the deed of sale was prepared in Doctor Recto's Building. He recalls a transaction between Alunan and complaints in intervention.
office but he was not present having gone to that office hernaez on the one hand and the Hakodate Dock. Ltd.,
only after he had been informed that the document was on the other. He thinks that he drew a deed of sale and ISSUE
ready; that after he had been assured that the that the document was signed in his office; that he was WON the signatures of Alunan and Hernaez on the deed
document was complete, he affixed his signature in the same room. He was asked if he was one of the of sale are authentic
thereto; that according to his memory he was asked to witnesses to the document but the question was
sign the document after the vendors, Alunan and objected to and the objection was sustained. He further HELD
Hernaez, had signed it; that as he left Manila for Japan declares that he took charge of registering the deeds of YES

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

- No valid ground can be perceived for the insinuation evidence. At the most, failure to produce the secured some information about what we became of
that the defendant or the Hakodate Dock Co. concealed document, when available to establish its execution their certificates.
any of the signed copies of the disputed deed. It is may affect the weight of the evidence presented out - Yet Hernaez would have the court believe, as we
highly inconceivable that the United States not the admissibility of such evidence. gather from his testimony, that neither he nor his
Government or the Philippine Government In spite of the defects which the trial court noted in partner learned of the whereabouts of their titles until
representatives would be capable or resorting to such Garcia's and Recto's testimony, the same and after the Japanese had been driven away from the
dishonorable and shyster tactics in order to win the Watanabe's leave little or no room for doubt that Philippines and that for the two years they allowed
case and dispossess legitimate owners of their Alunan and her Hernaez did affix their signatures to the themselves to be deprived of the use of their property
property. Much less can it be imagined that those deed of sale. Hernaez' testimony which the trial court without protest. Let it be remembered that the property
representatives had a hand in the loss of pertinent says "it finds no reason to doubt" actually has to many had not been taken by the armed forces for war
papers in the register of deeds' office. It would have serious flaws to justify the court's faith. The testimony purposes but by a private concern if attached to and
been nonsensical on their part to steal the very is highly improbable in many important respects and is operating under the supervision of the Japanese Navy.
documents on which they based their action in vesting directly or indirectly contradicted by evidence more Contrary to Hernaez' assertions, Watanabe did not hold
the property. trustworthy and by well-established facts. Without any military rank or status, and the houses and lots
As for Hakodate Dock Company, his firm had no going to minute detail, the following considerations were used as quarters for the firm's civilian employees
interest in the result of the suit. It could not have should suffice to illustrate the point. and acquired in the firm's name with its own money.
entertained any hope of getting the property under any - The evasive answers Hernaez in his cross- The charge suggested by the line of plaintiff's evidence
circumstances. Furthermore, Watanabe has no longer examination cast serious reflection on the truth of the that the Hakodate Dock Co. resorted to frauds and
connected with Hakodate when he testified at the trial. protestations that the stolen document was forged. coercion so as not to pay for the plaintiffs' land and
Be that as it may, the court below was entirely Hernaez did not have to be shown the deed to be able houses is discredited by the fact that it settled the
mistaken in holding that parol evidence of the to tell that he had not signed it if that had been the mortgage, paying an amount which was only P10,000
execution of the instrument was barred. The court case. The point sought by the questions was very short of the purchase price. This payment bears
confounded the execution and the contents of the specific and must have been uppermost in the witness’ witness to Hakodate's good faith and willingness to
document. It is the contents, which in this case are not mind. It was the thesis of his complaint and had been spend for what it got. At the same time, and this is
in dispute, which may not be proved by secondary the subject of a prolonged investigation before the suit more important to the immediate issue, it is mute
evidence when the instrument itself is accessible. was filed. “Dates and years and figures" "difficult to testimony to the due execution of the sale by Alunan
Proofs of the execution are not dependent on the remember" had nothing to do with, and could not have and Hernaez; for it is not logical to suppose that the
existence or non-existence of the document, and as a obscured the right answer to the simple question Hakodate would have parted with a huge amount of
matter of fact, such proofs of the contents: due whether Hernaez and Alunan had disposed of their cash, huge at the time, if the owners had not executed
execution, besides the loss, has to be shown as property which they were trying to recover. In fact a valid deed of conveyance.
foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence previously Hernaez and vehemently affirmed. "I never Another idea that suggests itself is that the officers of
of the contents. signed a deed of sale to any body, much less to the Hakodate, of the Hahodate, if they had a mind to
Section 46 ROC: Hakodate Dock Co." commit frauds, would not have been chosen Doctor
There can be no evidence of a writing other than the - One other notable feature of Hernaez' testimony is Jacinto for the victim of its felony in preference to a
writing itself the contents of which is the subject of the absence therefrom of any reference to Alunan in senator-elect, which Mr. Hernaez was, and a member of
inquiry, except in the following cases: connection with the alleged seizure of their houses and the Cabinet. To forge a deed of cancellation held by a
xxx xxx xxx certificates of title. Although there is no proof on the private citizen who wielded no official influence would
Section 51 ROC: record relative to Alunan's official position at the time have been undoubtedly the easier and the risks of
When the original writing has been lost or destroyed other than that he had an office in the legislative failure, not to say punishment, the lesser.
upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, its building, the court may take judicial notice of the fact - The premise of his ratiocination is wrong in that
contents may be proved by a copy, or by a recital of its that Alunan was a member of the Executive Hernaez testified that he and no the Hakodate Dock Co.
contents in some authentic document, or by the Commission and later cabinet minister in the Japanese paid off the mortgage. However, the clear weight of the
recollection of witnesses. sponsored Government of the Philippines. The point is evidence both as to quality and the number of
- Evidence of the execution of a document is, in the that if what Hernaez says were correct, it does not witnesses is against the plaintiffs.
last analysis, necessarily collateral or primary. It seem probable that Alunan would not have known the - Against the plaintiffs' evidence there is the testimony
generally consists of parol testimony or extrinsic occurrence, and knowing it, taken steps to recover the of Watanabe and Jacinto who said the payment was
papers. Even when the document is actually produced, seized titles or compensation for the property. It does affected by the former, and of Recto and Garcia who
its authenticity is not necessarily, if at all, determined not seem likely that he would not have at least said that the cancellation was arranged and perfected
from its face or recital of its contents but by parol complained to the Japanese higher authorities and

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

in their law office at the instance of the Hakodate same date the mortgage was cancelled and the - In the matter of the value of the houses and lots
representatives. cancellation was registered, the assertion would registered by the Hakodate Dock Co., the trial court
- In contract, Hernaez said he did "not know who contradict Hernaez' testimony from which the clear believed that the price stated in the deed was highly
handled the cancellation," a matter which seemed too inference is that he had the titles in his home for days inadequate and regarded this alleged inadequate as
important not to be remembered, contenting himself or weeks before the Legaspi Landing incident. Besides, supporting the contention that the sale was forged.
with the statement that "The thing is that when he paid Watanabe and his attorneys and notary could not by The court seems to have overlooked the fact that the
him (Jacinto) he gave us the release." And as to the any possibility have drawn or registered the deed of property sold to Hakodate Dock Co., was only eight
place of cancellation, he said that it was somewhere on sale on the same date the certificates were returned to parcels containing a total area of 4,533,34 square
the Escolta, in the office of the law firm of Duran, Lim & Hernaez to Doctor Jacinto. meters, whereas the property which the plaintiff had
Bausa, when, it is conclusively established, Attuy. Lim, - One of the arguments advanced to drive home the bought from Chuan & Sons for P185,000 and of which
who was Jacinto's attorney, and whom Hernaez point that the questioned sale was fake is that, it is the property in questioned formed a part, measured
apparently had in mind, separated from that firm as said, Alunan and Hernaez did not have any need to sell 8,027.72 square meters. So that by selling the above
early as the beginning of the Japanese occupation in this property. Moreover, it is alleged purchase price portion of P170,000, they were able to recoup nearly all
1942, and, as a matter of fact, the cancellation was was far below its actual value. their investment, without counting the rents they had
executed, as above, seen, in the Recto Law Office and - Jacinto testified that having heard that the property in theretofore realized on the houses, and keep nearly
not in the law office of Duran, Lim & Bausa. Note that question was being sold to the Japanese, he one-half of their original acquisition as a clear profit.
the attesting witnesses to the cancellation were immediately gave instructions to his then attorney, That was not a bad bargain. It is a matter of common
Napoleon Garcia and Jose Ma. Recto and the document Manuel Lim, to see Alunan and Hernaez and offer in his knowledge that in February 1943 Japanese war notes
was acknowledge before Garcia was notary public. behalf to buy it. And Atty. Lim, who was SolGen when were still about at par with the Commonwealth peso.
- The fact that the deed of cancellation was made in he testified corroborated his former client, stating that The sale of the plaintiff's other land in Dewey Boulevard
the name of Alunan and Hernaez cannot be any means about the end of 1942 or the early part of 1943, he for a much higher price in proportion to its size took
be taken as evidence of plaintiff's theory. The payment requested Alunan to let Doctor Jacinto buy the said place in 1944, or in the latter part of 1943 at the
was in reality made in their name although the money property, and proposed easy terms. He said that he earliest, when the Japanese war notes had been
came was received by the payee from Watanabe. For called on Alunan twice or three times in the latter's shipping down fast. At any rate, the proceeds of the
the purpose of registration, the deed of cancellation office in the Legislative Building; that in the first visit sale were more than enough to liquidate their
had to be deframed the way it was drawn. Alunan said that he would consult with his partner, mortgage debt, the payment of which the purchaser
- The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence Senator Hernaez, and in the second, that he and his took charge of attending to. As Hernaez said, "the thing
likewise discredits Hernaez' declaration that his and partner were still undecided, but remarked that he had is that when we paid him (Jacinto) he gave us the
Alunan's certificates of title were in his possession. received an offer from a Japanese firm and that he release."
Jacinto said he had them, and it could not have been (Alunan) and Hernaez would prefer to make the sale of - For another thing, it is a mistake to take the alleged
otherwise. It is the invariable and sensible practice of the Japanese. We have no reason to suspect the inadequacy of the price stated in the deed of evidence
mortgagees to keep the title to the property mortgaged veracity at these witnesses. of forgery, for figures are easy to fabricate and a forger
as a necessary measure of protection. In the testimony That Alunan and Hernaez were not averse to selling the would endeavor to fix an amount in accord with the
before the court (he had lenghtly testified before the property in question may be inferred from the plaintiffs' prevailing rates of real estate value precisely to
claim committee of the PAPA Hernaez admitted that own evidence. Hernaez testified that he had sold to a forestall such suspicion as is put forward in this case.
Doctor Jacinto did not depart from this practice. In Chinese in 1944 the land on Dewey Boulevard where - The appealed decision says "another issue raised by
answer to the court's question whether he turned over the Riviera is now located, for P360,000 or P375,000 the plaintiffs is the illegality of the alleged acquisition
to Doctor Jacinto the said certificates when he executed and a parcel, location not revealed, to Toyo Menka by the Hakodate Dock Co. Ltd., of the property under
the mortgage, he answered in the affirmative. How Kaisha for P40,000 "nearly the same time, March litigation, assuming that a contract was duly executed
then could Hernaez have those certificates when he 1943," a lot by which the way, according to Hernaez he by Messrs. Alunan and Hernaez in favor of the said
was allegedly carried to the Legaspi Landing where, he was also claiming from the PAPA. He also disclosed that company," And citing Krivenco vs. Register of Deeds,
said, they were taken away from him? he had "sold many jewelries, watches and other the court concluded that the sale would be null and
The deed of sale and the deed of cancellation were things," which goes to show that they were not void any way.
executed on the same date, February 20, and the oversupplied with cash. Of equal significance is the - As the appellants have noted, nowhere in the
genuineness of the latter deed is admitted. This being statement indicating that Hernaez and Alunan were pleadings did the plaintiffs impeach the validity of the
so, Hernaez could not have had the certificates of title engaged in real estate business. Hernaez stated, "We sale to Hakodate Dock Co., on constitutional grounds.
and these could not have been taken away from him used to have here some properties that we sold on ten And even if they had, the present case would not be
before that date. If it be asserted that the certificates years installment before the war and after the war." controlled by the doctrine laid down in the Krivenko
might have been handed over to the Japanese on the case. The Philippine Constitution was not in force

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. The not cover the whole balance, and in the second place, it
constitution was inoperative at least with reference to was not the money which he had loaned. When they ARCEO v CA
Japanese citizens. Military Ordinance No. 2, noticed his reluctance they told him that he could be G.R. No. 142641
promulgated on March 14, 1942, expressly excluded grateful because they could have taken the property CORONA, July 17, 2006
"Japanese subjects from the operation of prohibition without anything for it. (cha)
and limitations on civil rights, benefits and privileges, The court can sympathize with the mortgagee and
which by reason, of their nationality are denied them believe that at heart he was opposed to the payment of NATURE
by laws, statutes, administrative orders or regulations his credit in Japanese money and would not have Petition for review on certiorari
of the Philippines." There is no doubt about the rights rejected or protested against the payment if it had FACTS
under the international law of the belligerent occupants been tendered by the debtor directly. Under the -Arceo obtained 2 consecutive loans from Cenizal:
to issue this decree. applicable law and uniform decisions of this Court, P100k then P50k. He then issued a BPI Check postdated
- The court would also invalidate the sale on the theory however, the payment was enforceable irrespective of August 4, 1991 for P150k at Cenizal’s house located at
"that the Hakodate Dock Co. Ltd., a purely Japanese the attitude of the creditor. The debtor or his successor- 70 Panay Ave., QC.
concern, was never registered as such in the in-interest had the right to pay the mortgage in -August 4, 1991, Cenizal did not deposit the check
Philippines nor was it authorized to transact business in Japanese war notes, which were the authorized immediately because Arceo promised 7 times that he
accordance with existing Philippine Corporation Law." currency in circulation, not to say the only currency would replace the check with cash. But since Arceo
This question, like the just discussed, has not been available. In other words, the payment would have failed to replace the check, Cenizal brought the check
raised in the pleadings. What is more, we know of no released the mortgage even if it had been tendered by to the bank for encashment 120 days after the due
law or provision of the Corporation Law which prohibits the mortgagor personally and had been turned down by date. The checked bounced because of insufficient
a business concern not authorized to transact business the mortgagee. That was the unfortunate situation into funds.
from buying or owning real property. As to counsel's which thousands of prewar creditors were thrust by the -Cenizal then went to Arceo’s house to inform him of
observation that "there was no proof that Satoru war, most of them being forced to accept Japanese the dishonor of the check. However, Arceo already left
Watanabe, who was then merely an acting Manila military notes when these were little better than the place. Arceo was given a letter giving him 3 days
manager of the company, was duly authorized to useless. from receipt thereof to pay the amount of the check but
represent said company," the defect if there was a - The disparity in value, if any, between Japanese war Arceo still failed to pay.
defect was one which the only principal or the party for notes and the Philippine peso in February 1943 was not -Cenizal then executed an affidavit and submitted
whom Watanabe purported to act could use to rescind great, however. According to the Ballantyne conversion documents in support of his complaint for estafa and
the sale. table, the exchange ratio between the two currencies in violation of BP 221.
- The probabilities of forgery are very remote and the February 1943 was P1 to P1.10. It is to be kept in mind -However, Cenizal lost the check in question and the
direct evidence for the defendant has abundantly and that the scale did not pretend to be exact. The ratio return slip after a fire occurred near his residence on
convincingly established that the property was sold by could have been still even. The belief is, perhaps, 1992. He executed an Affidavit of Loss instead.
its former owners for valuable consideration. The loss confirmed by the price of the absolute sale which was -TC: GUILTY
of the pertinent records in the office of the register of only P10,000 more than the mortgage debt.
deeds cannot be availed of to bolster the plaintiffs' case In any event, the mortgagee, whatever his feelings, did 1 SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. ? Any person who makes or draws and issues any
or weaken the defense. If the loss is to produce any accept the payment, deposit the cash in the bank in check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have
effect, the effect should be reverse, considering all current account, and could have made use of it. At the sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
circumstances surrounding the theft. then prevailing value of Japanese war notes, the presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
Doctor Jacinto's case: Doctor Jacinto testified: He was amount could have been invested profitably in other funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
paid the amount of the mortgage by a Japanese, who real estate or business transactions. Under the any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not
said that he represented the Hakodate Dock Co., at the circumstances, the principle of estoppel is not to be less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more
beginning of 1943, and deposited the check, signed by ruled out. than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand
a Japanese, in the Philippine Bank of Commerce. He Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
executed a release of the mortgage because he was DISPOSITION: The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit
told by the Japanese, accompanied by a Filipino from Upon the foregoing considerations, the judgment as to with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient
the law firm of Mr. Recto that the document of intervenor Dr. Jacinto is affirmed and as to the funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of
cancellation was already prepared. He was informed defendant reversed the defendant being hereby ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the
that they had purchased the property for the Hakodate absolved, with costs of both instances against the drawee bank.
Dock Co. He was reluctant to sign the deed of plaintiffs and appellees. Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who
cancellation because, in the first place, the amount did actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

-CA:GUILTY, MFR denied that he presented the originals of the check, the return NATURE
-Petitioner’s contention: TC and CA erred in convicting slip and other pertinent documents before the Office of Appeals were interposed by the defendants Bernardo
him because: (1) prosecution failed to present the the City Prosecutor of Quezon City when he executed Gregorio and Eustaquio Balistoy from the judgment
dishonored check during trial; (2) the check was his complaint-affidavit during the preliminary rendered in the two causes prosecuted which were
presented beyond the 90-day period provided under investigation. The City Prosecutor found a prima facie consolidated
the law; (3) notice requirement was not complied with, case against petitioner for violation of BP 22 and filed
given only 3 days and not 5 banking days to pay, as the corresponding information based on the FACTS
required by law; (4) payment of obligation documents. Although the check and the return slip - This case concerns the falsity of a document
were among the documents lost by Cenizal in a fire that alleged to have been written on a date prior to
ISSUE occurred near his residence on September 16, 1992, he the one when it actually was prepared, which
1. WON the CA erred in convicting him even though the was nevertheless able to adequately establish the due instrument simulates the sale of a parcel of land by its
check was presented beyond the 90-day period execution, existence and loss of the check and the owner to a third party, with the intent to defraud the
2. WON the prosecution is required to present the return slip in an affidavit of loss as well as in his creditor, who, through proper judicial process, solicited
check which was dishonored testimony during the trial of the case. Moreover, and obtained the attachment and sale of the said
3. WON all the elements of the offense are present petitioner himself admited that he issued the check. He property in order, with the proceeds of such sale, to
4. WON Arceo was deprived of the 5-day period never denied that the check was presented for recover the amount which the owner of the land owed
required by law and if ever, did he pay payment to the drawee bank and was dishonored for him.
having been drawn against insufficient funds. - Prior case: In a suit instituted by Pedro Salazar, as
HELD a creditor, against Eustaquio Balistoy, in the justice
1. NO. 3. YES. Both the trial and appellate courts found that of the peace court of Libog, for the payment of a
Ratio. The 90-day period provided in the law is not an petitioner issued the postdated check in the amount of certain sum of money, judgment was rendered wherein
element of the offense. Neither does it discharge P150k. Check was deposited but was dishonored for the debtor was sentenced to pay to the plaintiff
petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in insufficient funds. Petitioner knew he did not have P275.92.
the account within a reasonable time from the date sufficient funds, he even requested Cenizal not to - For the execution of the said judgment, two rural
indicated in the check. According to current banking encash it and promised that he would replace it with properties belonging to the debtor were attached. May
practice, the reasonable period within which to present cash instead. Nevertheless, he still did not replace the 27, 1908 was set as the date for the sale and
a check to the drawee bank is six months. Thereafter, checks with cash. adjudication of the said attached properties. A few days
the check becomes stale and the drawer is discharged before such date, Bernardo Gregorio requested the
from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused 4. NO and NO. Cenizal’s counsel informed Arceo in deputy sheriff to exclude the said realty from the
by the delay. [Wong vs. CA] writing of the check’s dishonor and demanded payment attachment, alleging that he was the owner of the land
Reasoning. Cenizal’s presentment of the check to the of the value of the check. Petitioner still failed to pay situated in Tambogon, one of the properties levied
drawee bank 120 days (four months) after its issue was the amount of the check even after receipt of demand upon, for the reason that he had acquired it by
still within the allowable period. Petitioner was freed for payment, even after the period of 5 banking days purchase from the judgment debtor, Balistoy, in
neither from the obligation to keep sufficient funds in have passed. On payment, he presented no proof to 1905, prior to the filing of the complaint.
his account nor from liability resulting from the support it. If he indeed paid, he should have redeemed - By reason of this claim and petition, the judgment
dishonor of the check. the check from Cenizal as in the ordinary course of creditor, Salazar, had to give a bond, in view of which
business but instead, Cenizal still possessed the check. the sheriff proceeded with the sale of the said property,
2. NO and of another, also attached for the sum of P300, and
Ratio. The rule applies only where the content of the Disposition. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby both were adjudicated to the judgment creditor.
document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue DENIED. The April 28, 1999 decision and March 27, - In order that the claim of intervention presented to
is the execution or existence of the document or the 2000 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR the sheriff might prosper, Bernardo Gregorio
circumstances surrounding its execution, the best No. 19601 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. attached thereto the document Exhibit D, at the
evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence end of which and among other particulars appears the
is admissible. The gravamen of the offense is the act of memorandum dated in Libog as of February 22, 1905,
drawing and issuing a worthless check. Hence, the US V GREGORIO & BALISTOY and signed by Eustaquio Balistoy, Lorenzo Gregorio,
subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or G.R. No. L-5791 and Cirilo Valla, and in which Balistoy states that he
execution of the check, not its content. TORRES; December 17, 1910 bought the land referred to in the said document from
Reasoning. The due execution and existence of the (rach) Luis Balistoy and sold it to Bernardo Gregorio for P300,
check were sufficiently established. Cenizal testified wherefore he signed as such vendor.

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

- Current charge: Balistoy, with intent to injure his stated that these parties, the defendants, simulated the containing the libelous article with the innuendo,
creditor, Pedro Salazar, and for the purpose of said memorandum of sale or conveyance of the land another article in the vernacular published in the same
avoiding the attachment and sale of one of the with the intent to injure the creditor, Pedro Salazar. weekly, and its translation into Spanish.
properties belonging to him, to secure the payment - But as the original document, setting forth the -Counsel for the defendant objected to this evidence,
of the judgment obtained by his creditor in the said memorandum, was not presented, but which objection was sustained by the court.
aforementioned suit, did, with disregard of the truth in merely a copy thereof, and furthermore, as it Petitioner's Contention
the narration of the facts, execute or write the said could not be ascertained who had the original of -The exhibits in question are the best evidence of the
memorandum whereby, on February 25, 1905, he the document containing the memorandum in libel, the subject matter of the information, and should
made or simulated a conveyance of one of the attached question, nor the exact date when the latter was therefore be admitted
properties in favor of the said Bernardo Gregorio, written. Respondent's Argument
according to the aforesaid copy, when in fact the - The said memorandum, presumed to be simulated Inasmuch as the libelous articles were not quoted in the
said memorandum was written in April, 1908. and false, was not literally compared by the sheriff who information (what was quoted was not the actual article
- The court pronounced both of them guilty of testified that he had seen its original for but a few but its Spanish translation), said evidence cannot be
falsification of a private document. Defendants moments, nor by any officer authorized by law to admitted without amending the information.
appealed. certify to documents and proceedings such as are
recorded in notarial instruments, nor even by two ISSUE
ISSUE witnesses who might afterwards have been able to 1.WON an information charging a libel published in an
WON the defendants were guilty of the crime of testify before the court that the copy exhibited was in unofficial language, without including a copy of the
falsification of a private document exact agreement with its original. libelous article, but only a translation into Spanish is
- Therefore, on account of these deficiencies, valid
HELD doubt arises as to whether the original of the 2. WON a writ of mandamus to compel the
NO document, Exhibit D, really existed at all, and respondent judge to admit Exhibits A, B, C, and D
Ratio Through the lack of the original document whether the memorandum at the foot of the said should issue
containing the memorandum alleged to be false, it is exhibit is an exact copy of that alleged to have been
improper to hold, with only a copy of the said original in written at the end of the said original document. HELD
view, that the crime prosecuted was committed; and Disposition For the foregoing reasons, it is proper, in 1. Yes
although, judging from the testimony of the witnesses our opinion, with a reversal of the judgment appealed Gen rule: The complaint or information for libel must
who were examined in the two consolidated causes, from, to acquit, and we hereby do acquit Eustaquio set out the particular defamatory words as published,
there is reason to entertain much doubt as to the Balistoy and Bernardo Gregorio. and a statement of their substance and effect is
defendants' innocence, yet, withal, this case does not insufficient
furnish decisive and conclusive proof of their Exception: If the libelous article had been published in
respective guilt as coprincipals of the crime PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF PAMPANGA V REYES an unofficial language, as in this case, it is sufficient to
charged. Defendants in a criminal cause are always G.R. No. 35366 insert a Spanish or English translation in the
presumed to be innocent until their guilt be fully VILLAMOR; August 5, 1931 information.
proven, and, in case of reasonable doubt and when (apple) 2.Yes.
their guilt is not satisfactorily shown, they are entitled -The general rules regarding the admissibility of
to a judgment of acquittal. NATURE evidence are applicable to cases of libel or slander. The
- In criminal proceedings for the falsification of a Petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus evidence must be relevant, and not hearsay.
document, it is indispensable that the judges and -This being so, the rule of procedure which
courts have before them the document alleged to FACTS requires the production of the best evidence, is
have been simulated, counterfeited, or falsified, -The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two applicable to the present case.
in order that they may find, pursuant to the evidence informations for libel against Andres Guevarra, alleging -Certainly, the copies of the weekly where the
produced in the cause, whether or not the crime of that he caused the publication in Ing Magumasid libelous article was published, and its
falsification was committed, and also, at the same time, ( weekly paper in Pampango dialect), a squib in verse, translation, constitute the best evidence of the
to enable them to determine the degree of each intended to impeach the honesty, integrity, and libel charged. The newspaper itself is the best
defendant's liability in the falsification under reputation of Clemente Dayrit and Mariano evidence of an article published in it.
prosecution. Nepomuceno. -The respondent judge undoubtedly has discretion to
Reasoning In the charge filed in this case against the -The fiscal attempted to present as evidence Exhibits A, admit or reject the evidence offered by the fiscal; but in
vendor and the vendee of the land in question, it is B, C, and D, which are copies of the Ing Magumasid the instant case his refusal to admit such evidence

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

amounts to an abuse of that discretion, which may be -In her lifetime, Marcosa Bernabe owned the disputed
controlled by this court by means of mandamus ISSUE parcel of land
proceedings. WON the admission of only the Xerox copy of the P10
bill was erroneous, based on best evidence rule.
-The disputed property was mortgaged by petitioners
Basilio and Felipe de Vera to a certain Atty. Leonardo
Petition granted RULING
Bordador. When the mortgage had matured, the
respondents redeemed the property from Atty.
Apparently, appellant erroneously thinks that said
Leonardo Bordador and in turn Marcosa Bernabe sold
PEOPLE v. TANDOY marked money is an ordinary document falling under
the same to them as evidenced by a deed of absolute
GR 80505; Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court which
sale dated February 11, 1956.
December 4, 1990; Cruz excludes the introduction of secondary evidence except
(Ina) in the five (5) instances mentioned therein.
The best evidence rule applies only when the -On February 13, 1956, the respondents registered the
FACTS contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. deed with the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan resulting in
An information against Tandoy was filed with the Where the issue is only as to whether or not such the cancellation of the tax declaration in the name of
RTC. It charged him with selling 10 pieces of dried document was actually executed, or exists, or in the Marcosa Bernabe and the issuance of another in the
marijuana, a prohibited drug, for P20. He was circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, name of the Aguilars.
convicted. He appealed. the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial
evidence is admissible. (Cf. Moran, op. cit., pp. 76-77; 4
-On July 20, 1977, respondent Mariano Aguilar was
Prosecution’s evidence: Martin, op. cit., p. 78.)
issued a free patent to the land on the basis of which
Police officers conducted a buy-bust operation Since the aforesaid marked money was presented
Original Certificate of Title was issued in his name.
along Solchuaga St., Bgy Singkamas, Makati. One by the prosecution solely for the purpose of
officer posed as a buyer and waited for a pusher near a establishing its existence and not its contents, other
store. Tandoy approached him and right away asked substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is -The petitioners wrote to the respondents claiming that
him if wanted to iskor. The officer paid a P10 bill and therefore admissible without the need of accounting for as children of Marcosa Bernabe, they were co-owners of
two P5 bills (marked money) for two rolls of marijuana. the original. the property and demanded partition thereof on threats
Then the other officers arrested Tandoy. They made a Moreover, the presentation at the trial of the "buy- that the respondents would be charged with perjury
body search and found 8 more rolls. They brought him bust money" was not indispensable to the conviction of and/or falsification. The petitioners also claimed that
to the police station to be investigated. Tandoy the accused-appellant because the sale of the the respondents had resold the property to Marcosa
remained silent after being read his rights. This was marijuana had been adequately proved by the Bernabe on April 28, 1959.
narrated by 3 police officers. testimony of the police officers. So long as the
Microscopic, chemical and chromatographic marijuana actually sold by the accused-appellant had
-On September 27, 1980, the respondents wrote in
examination of the confiscated marijuana was positive been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to produce the
reply to the petitioners that they were the sole owners
for marijuana. The marijuana was offered as exhibit. marked money itself would not constitute a fatal
of the disputed parcel of land and denied that the land
was resold to Marcosa Bernabe.
Defendant’s story:
He was playing “cara y cruz” with 15 other people
along Solchuaga St., when somebody suddenly said DE VERA v. AGUILAR -True to petitioners' threat, they filed a falsification
that the police were making arrests. The people GR 83377; February 9, 1993; Campos, Jr. case against the respondents. However, on March 31,
grabbed the bet money and scattered. He was arrested (Chrislao) 1981, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Arsenio N. Mercado of
and the money they found on him was from the game. Bulacan recommended dismissal of the charge of
He and a fellow player were taken to the police station FACTS falsification of public document against the
and mauled to give up the other pushers. -Petitioners Basilio, Luis, Felipe, Eustaquia and Maria, respondents for lack of a prima facie case.
all surnamed de Vera and respondent Leona, married to
The trial court believed the police officers’ story respondent Mariano Aguilar, are the children and heirs
-On March 26, 1981, petitioners filed a suit for
over the defendant’s. Applying the presumption that of the late Marcosa Bernabe who died on May 10, 1960.
reconveyance of the lot.
they had performed their duties in a regular manner, it
rejected Tandoy's uncorroborated allegation that he
had been manhandled and framed.

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

-TC ruled in petitioners’ favor. CA reversed. It found -SC agrees with the TC's findings that petitioners have of letters testamentary in her favor. The petition was
that the loss or destruction of the original deed of sale sufficiently established the due execution of the alleged opposed by the appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla,
has not been duly proven by the petitioners. Hence, deed of sale through the testimony of the notary public. Wilferine Bonilla Treyes Expedita Bonilla Frias and
secondary evidence, i.e., presentation of the xeroxed Ephraim Bonilla. The appellees likewise moved for the
copy of the alleged deed of sale is inadmissible consolidation of the case with another case. Their
-After the due execution of the document has been
motion was granted by the court in an order dated April
established, it must next be proved that said document
4, 1977. On November 13, 1978, following the
ISSUE has been lost or destroyed. The destruction of the
consolidation of the cases, the appellees moved again
-WON petitioners have satisfactorily proven the loss of instrument may be proved by any person knowing the
to dismiss the petition for the probate of the will. They
the original deed of sale so as to allow the presentation fact. The loss may be shown by any person who knew
argued that: (1) The alleged holographic was not a last
of the xeroxed copy of the same. the fact of its loss, or by any one who had made, in the
will but merely an instruction as to the management
judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the
and improvement of the schools and colleges founded
RULING place or places where the document or papers of
by decedent Ricardo B. Bonilla; and (2) Lost or
similar character are usually kept by the person in
destroyed holographic wills cannot be proved by
whose custody the document lost was, and has been
-NO. Secondary evidence is admissible when the secondary evidence unlike ordinary wills.
unable to find it; or who has made any other
original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But
investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that
prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, Upon opposition of the appellant, the motion to dismiss
the instrument is indeed lost.
the proponent must establish the former existence of was denied by the court in its order of February 23,
the instrument. The correct order of proof is as follows: 1979. The appellees then filed a motion for
Existence; execution; loss; contents although this order -However, all duplicates or counterparts must be reconsideration on the ground that the order was
may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the accounted for before using copies. For, since all the contrary to law and settled pronouncements and
court. The sufficiency of proof offered as a predicate for duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing itself rulings of the Supreme Court, to which the appellant in
the admission of an alleged lost deed lies within the to be proved, no excuse for non-production of the turn filed an opposition. On July 23, 1979, the court set
judicial discretion of the trial court under all the writing itself can be regarded as established until it aside its order of February 23, 1979 and dismissed the
circumstances of the particular case. appears that all of its parts are unavailable (i.e. lost, petition for the probate of the will of Ricardo B. Bonilla.
retained by the opponent or by a third person or the The court said held that in view of the lapse of more
like) than 14 years from the time of the execution of the will
-A reading of the decision of the trial court shows that it
to the death of the decedent, the fact that the original
merely ruled on the existence and due execution of the
of the will could not be located shows that the decedent
alleged deed of sale dated April 28, 1959. It failed to -In the case at bar, Atty. Emiliano Ibasco, Jr., notary
had discarded before his death his allegedly missing
look into the facts and circumstances surrounding the public who notarized the document testified that the
Holographic Will.
loss or destruction of the original copies of the alleged alleged deed of sale has about four or five original
deed of sale. copies. Hence, all originals must be accounted for
Appellant's motion for reconsideration was denied.
before secondary evidence can be given of any
Hence, an appeal to the Court of Appeals in which it is
one. This petitioners failed to do. Records show
-In the case at bar, the existence of an alleged sale of a contended that the dismissal of appellant's petition is
that petitioners merely accounted for three out
parcel of land was proved by the presentation of a contrary to law and well-settled jurisprudence. On July
of four or five original copies.
xeroxed copy of the alleged deed of absolute sale. 7, 1980, appellees moved to forward the case to this
Court on the ground that the appeal does not involve a
CA affirmed question of fact.
-In establishing the execution of a document the same
may be established by the person or persons who
executed it, by the person before whom its execution
RODELAS V ARANZA ET AL. WON a holographic will which was lost or cannot be
was acknowledged, or by any person who was present
RELOVA; DECEMBER 7, 1982 found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy
and saw it executed or who, after its execution, saw it
and recognized the signatures; or by a person to whom
the parties to the instrument had previously confessed
FACTS YES. Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate
the execution thereof.
On January 11, 1977, appellant filed a petition with the of holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the
Court of First Instance of Rizal for the probate of the court after its due execution has been proved. The
holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance probate may be uncontested or not. If uncontested, at

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

least one Identifying witness is required and, if no -NAPOCOR filed an Amended Complaint dated 8 July petitioner has not shown that the non-presentation or
witness is available, experts may be resorted to. If 1996 impleading Wallem as additional defendant, non-production of its original documentary pieces of
contested, at least three Identifying witnesses are contending that the latter is a ship agent of Bangpai. evidence falls under such exceptions. Lastly, the CA
required. However, if the holographic will has been lost -Bangpai & Wallem filed their respective Motions to said that the information (in said exhibits) were not
or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will Dismiss which were denied by J. Codilla. received, retrieved or produced electronically and that
cannot be probated because the best and only -NAPOCOR after adducing evidence during the trial of NAPOCOR had not properly authenticated such
evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. the case, filed a formal offer of evidence before the evidence as electronic documents.
It is necessary that there be a comparison between lower court consisting of Exhibits "A" to "V" together - Hence, the instant petition wherein NAPOCOR insists
sample handwritten statements of the testator and the with the sub-marked portions thereof. Consequently, that the photocopies it presented as documentary
handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy Bangpai and Wallem filed their respective objections to evidence actually constitute electronic evidence based
of the holographic will may be allowed because said formal offer of evidence. on its own premise that an "electronic document" as
comparison can be made with the standard writings of - J. Codilla denied (through an order) the admission and defined under Section 1(h), Rule 2 of the Rules on
the testator. In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, excluding from the records NAPOCOR’s Exhibits "A", Electronic Evidence is not limited to information that is
the Court ruled that "the execution and the contents of "C", "D", "E", "H" and its sub-markings, "I", "J" and its received, recorded, retrieved or produced
a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved sub-markings, "K", "L", "M" and its sub-markings, "N" electronically. Rather, "electronic document" can also
by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and its sub-markings, "O", "P" and its sub-markings, "Q" refer to other modes of written expression that is
and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented; and its sub-markings, "R" and "S" and its sub-markings. produced electronically, such as photocopies, as
otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards -According to the court a quo: ”The record shows that included in the section�s catch-all proviso: "any print-
the document itself as material proof of authenticity." the plaintiff has been given every opportunity to out or output, readable by sight or other means".
But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps present the originals of the Xerox or photocopies of the
it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic documents it offered. It never produced the originals.
copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by The plaintiff attempted to justify the admission of the ISSUE: WON the photocopies are indeed electronic
other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of photocopies by contending that "the photocopies documents as contemplated in RA No. 8792 or the IRR
the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and offered are equivalent to the original of the document" of the Electronic Commerce Act, as well as the Rules on
tested before the probate court," Evidently, the …xxx…the Xerox copies do not constitute the Electronic Evidence/ WON said electronic documents
photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed electronic evidence defined in Section 1 of Rule 2 of the qualify under the one of the exceptions of Best
holographic will may be admitted because then the Rules on Electronic Evidence…xxx… However, these Evidence Rule so that those may be admitted as
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be excluded evidence should be attached to the records of documentary evidence
determined by the probate court. this case to enable the appellate court to pass upon
them should an appeal be taken from the decision on HELD: NO/NO.
. the merits to be rendered upon the termination of the Reasoning:
NAPOCOR v. HON. RAMON G. CODILLA, JR. trial of this case.” -A perusal of the information contained in the
[BANGPAI SHIPPING COMPANY, & WALLEM - NAPOCOR’s MR was denied and so the filed a petition photocopies submitted by NAPOCOR will reveal that not
SHIPPING, INC.] for Certiorari via R64 before the Court of Appeals all of the contents therein, such as the signatures of the
G.R. No. 170491 maintaining that J. Codilla acted with GAD amounting to persons who purportedly signed the documents, may
CHICO-NAZARIO; April 4, 2007 lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the admission be recorded or produced electronically. By no stretch of
(edel) of its exhibits and its sub-markings. the imagination can a person’s signature affixed
- CA dismissed the petition as it appeared that there manually be considered as information electronically
Nature: Certiorari under Rule 45 was no sufficient showing by NAPOCOR that there was received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,
Facts: GAD. It appeared that the pieces of documentary retrieved or produced.
-M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry owned and evidence which were denied admission were not - According to the SC, the TC did not commit an error
operated by Bangpai allegedly bumped and damaged properly identified by any competent witness. Also, when it denied the admissibility of the photocopies as
NAPOCOR’s Power Barge 209 which was then moored they found that the judge acted within the pale of his documentary evidence as Napocor failed to establish
at the Cebu International Port. discretion when he denied admission of said that its offer falls under the exceptions (as herein
-NAPOCOR then filed before the Cebu RTC a complaint documentary evidence for in Sec 3 of Rule 130 of the enumerated).
for damages against Bangpai for the alleged damages RoC, when the subject of inquiry are the contents of
caused on the power barges. documents, no evidence shall be admissible other than Best Evidence Rule under Rule 130 (as discussed
the original documents themselves, except in certain by the SC):
cases specifically so enumerated therein, and the

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

When the original document has been lost or therein, similar to any other document which is (R.A.) No. 26 which grants the court the authority to
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, presented in evidence as proof of its contents. consider other documents which it finds sufficient and
upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause However, what differentiates an electronic document proper bases for the reconstitution prayed for. In this
of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may from a paper-based document is the manner by which case, the documentary evidence presented by
prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its the information is processed; clearly, the information respondent Gertrudes B. Verzosa, coupled with the
contents in some authentic document, or by the contained in an electronic document is received, Report submitted by the Land Registration Authority
testimony of witnesses in the order stated. The offeror recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or (LRA) confirming the previous existence of TCT No.
of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the produced electronically. 140606, is sufficient basis to grant the reconstitution.
predicates thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the - OSG argues respondent did not prove that she had
original without bad faith on the part of the exerted honest efforts to secure the documents
proponent/offeror which can be shown by * NOTE: It was also said that NAPOCOR continued to enumerated in the law and had failed to find them.
circumstantial evidence of routine practices of obdurately disregard the opportunities given by the TC
destruction of documents; (b) the proponent must for it to present the originals of the photocopies it ISSUE
prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a presented BUT at the SC it prayed that it be allowed to WON TCT should be reconstituted
reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the present the originals of the exhibits that were denied
original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent admission or in case the same are lost, to lay the HELD
and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made predicate for the admission of secondary evidence. YES.
for the document in the proper place or places. However, SC denied said prayer. - Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 26 enumerates the sources upon
- History of BER: Before the onset of liberal rules of which the reconstitution of transfer certificates of title
discovery, and modern technique of electronic copying, DISPOSITIVE: Petition DENIED. CA DECISION of 9 shall be based.
the best evidence rule was designed to guard against November 2005 AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. - Among the sources enumerated in Sec. 3 of R.A. No.
incomplete or fraudulent proof and the introduction of 26, the owner’s duplicate of the transfer certificate of
altered copies and the withholding of the originals. But title is given primacy because such document is, by all
the modern justification for the rule has expanded from REPUBLIC V. VERZOSA accounts, an exact reproduction of the original copy of
the prevention of fraud to a recognition that writings GR NO. 173525 the transfer certificate of title. It is required, however,
occupy a central position in the law. The importance of TINGA; March 28, 2008 that the owner’s duplicate certificate itself, and not a
the precise terms of writings in the world of legal (chriscaps) mere photocopy thereof, be presented to the court.
relations, the fallibility of the human memory as - In this case, only a photocopy of the owner’s duplicate
reliable evidence of the terms, and the hazards of FACTS was presented.
inaccurate or incomplete duplicate are the concerns - Verzosa filed petition for reconstitution of orig TCT, - Photocopy of the owner’s certificate of title presented
addressed by the best evidence rule. (Lee v. P of the alleging that she and Edna Garcia are registered by respondent in support of her petition is still
Phils) owners of parcel of land. considered secondary evidence. As such, it is
- However, the orig was burned when QC Hall was inadmissible unless respondent proves any of the
-DEFINITION: "electronic document" refers to gutted by fire. The Duplicate Certificate was lost as exceptions provided in Sec. 3, Rule 130.
information or the representation of information, data, shown by Affidavit of Loss. - The Court explained the order of presentation of
figures, symbols or other models of written expression, - Real estate taxes on he prop have been paid. secondary evidence under Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the Rules
described or however represented, by which a right is - RTC set the case for hearing. Only rep from OSG of Court as existence, execution, loss, contents. The
established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a appeared. Petitioner-appellee was allowed to present order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of
fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, further evidence. Hearing was reset on the ground, the court. The sufficiency of the proof offered as a
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or among others, of the need to amend petition to predicate for the admission of an allegedly lost
produced electronically. It includes digitally signed implead petitioner’s co-owner, Edna Garcia, who is also document lies within the judicial discretion of the trial
documents and any printout, readable by sight or other her sister. On July 18, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for court under all the circumstances of the particular case.
means which accurately reflects the electronic data leave to present evidence ex-parte without impleading - Ultimately, the Court reinstated the decision of the
message or electronic document. her co-owner, citing the irreconcilable differences trial court because of the failure of the Spouses Mateo
-The rules use the word "information" to define an between them which the RTC granted. to satisfactorily show that the original of the transfer
electronic document received, recorded, transmitted, - RTC ordered Register of Deeds to reconstitute. certificate of title sought to be reconstituted had been
stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. Hence, the appeal by Republic, through OSG. lost or is no longer available, as well as the illegibility of
This would suggest that an electronic document is - According to the Court of Appeals, the petition for the photocopy presented.
relevant only in terms of the information contained reconstitution was filed under Sec. 3(f) of Republic Act

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

- Respondent submitted several documents to prove - BPI filed a case against the Laguna Coconut Oil Co. of the writing, or its failure to express the true intent
existence, execution and contents of the Certificate of and the Fidelity and Surety Company. The Fidelity and and agreement of the parties, is put in issue by the
Title. Respondent also duly proved loss of owner’s Surety Company interposed a demurrer to the plaintiff's pleadings.
copy. complaint twice and was sustained twice. BPI appealed - Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company vs.
- When a court, after hearing of a petition for to the SC where the ruling was reversed and the case Government of the Philippine Islands: (1) the courts of
reconstitution, finds that the evidence presented is remanded for further proceedings. equity will reform a written contract where, owing to
sufficient and proper to grant the same, that the - Back in the TC, Laguna Coconut Oil Co. made no mutual mistake, the language used therein did not fully
petitioner therein is the registered owner of the defense, and judgment by default was obtained against or accurately express the agreement and intent of the
property, and that the certificate sought to be it. The case as to Fidelity and Surety Company was parties; (2) the relief by way of reformation will not be
reconstituted was in force at the time it was lost, it submitted to the court upon a stipulation of facts. TC granted unless the proof of mutual mistake be "of the
becomes the duty of the court to issue the order of rendered judgment against the Fidelity and Surety clearest and most satisfactory character;" (3) the
reconstitution. Company for the full amount of the note, with interest. evidence introduced by the appellant met these
Fidelity and Surety Company appealed alleging that the stringent requirements.
action involved a reformation of the contract of - Centenera vs. Garcia Palicio; Mendozana vs. Philippine
guaranty, which was not put in issue by the pleadings. Sugar Estates Development Co. and De Garay: the
Judgment was reversed and the action dismissed, amount of evidence necessary to sustain a prayer for
"without prejudice to the bringing of another action relief where it is sought to impugn a fact in a document
upon the same cause." is always more than a mere preponderance of the
- BPI filed a new case wherein it attempted to connect evidence.
the promissory note with an existing obligation of the - An examination of the note and the guaranty
Philippine Vegetable Oil Company in the form of discloses that in the notation to the note the word
another promissory note. The evidence was also "hold" is interlined. This indicates that the VP
Parol Evidence Rule intended to demonstrate that a clear error had been (signatory) of the Fidelity and Surety Company had his
committed when reference was made to the “Laguna particular attention called to the language of the note,
BPI V FIDELITY & SURETY CO. Coconut Oil Co.” instead of “Bank of the Philippine and corrected the typewritten matter by inserting in ink
G.R. No. L-26743 Islands” in the notation on the note. the word quoted. That the writer of the notation fell into
MALCOLM; October 19, 1927 - TC: The note could not have been discounted by the a further error in obligating the company to the Laguna
(joey) Laguna Coconut Oil Co., and this must logically have Coconut Oil Co. may be possible. That the writer may
been done by BPI. Judgment in favor of the BPI for have had in mind to use the words Philippine Vegetable
NATURE P50,000 plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Oil Company, Inc. may also be possible. The names of
Appeal from the decision of the CFI of Manila the two parties before the guarantor were Laguna
ISSUES Coconut Oil Co. and Philippine Vegetable Oil Company,
FACTS WON reformation of the note, and thereafter, its Inc. The guaranteeing company could not very well
- Laguna Coconut Oil Co. executed a promissory enforcement, is justified. have assumed that BPI at a later date was
wherein it promised to pay the Philippine Vegetable contemplating discounting the note.
Company, Inc., or order, P50,000. HELD - It is also apparent on the face of the note that it was
- Fidelity and Surety Company of the Philippine Islands NO to draw interest at maturity. This would disprove
made a notation on the note as follows: “For value, Ratio To justify the reformation of a written instrument discount of the note by BPI on or before the maturity
received, we hereby obligate ourselves to hold the upon the ground of mistake, the concurrence of three date. In truth, it is not certain that BPI ever did discount
Laguna Coconut Oil Co. harmless against loss for things are necessary, the misake: (1) should be of a the note.
having discounted the foregoing note at the value fact; (2) should be proved by clear and convincing - The bookkeeping entries of the bank are hardly
stated therein.” evidence; and (3) should be common to both parties to competent against a stranger to the transaction.
- Philippine Vegetable Oil Company endorsed the note the instrument. Moreover, one entry at least in plaintiff's “Exhibit E”
in blank and delivered it to BPI. After maturity of the Reasoning has been changed by erasing the words "y Fidelity and
note, demand for its payment was made on the Laguna - According to Sec. 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Surety Co. of the Phil. Islands" and substituting
Coconut Oil Co., the Philippine Vegetable Oil Company, a written agreement is presumed to contain all the "Philippine Vegetable Oil Co. garatizado p. Fidelity &
and the Fidelity and Surety Company of the Philippine terms of the agreement. However, the Code permits Surety Co. of the Phil. Islands." The book entries taken
Islands, all of whom refused to pay, the first being evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the at their face value are not conclusive.
admittedly insolvent. contents of the writing where a mistake or imperfection

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

- The correspondence between the parties fails to in fact discount said note on the faith of this which was to the north and which was sold by her
disclose either an express or implied admission that the indorsement, and the instrument should be reformed so father in 1941 to the predecessor-in-interest of the
defendant had executed the guaranty in question in as to give expression to the liability of the defendant Lazos. [Read the original testimony to see how the
favor of the plaintiff bank. An attempt to interpret the company to the bank. defense lawyer, using a piece of paper and the sun's
correspondence merely leads open further into the field - By the decision of the court, the Fidelity and Surety movement as a reference, skillfully obtained this fact
of speculation. Yet the rule is that an admission or Company is entirely free from the obligation of from an illiterate witness.]
declaration to be competent must have been expressed guaranty in respect to this note, although it received - On the basis of the testimony of vendor Leoncia
in definite, certain, and unequivocal language. Here the value for that very undertaking. We therefore dissent. Lasangue, the CA upheld the CFI's decision but also
exhibits are couched in language which is neither declared Exhibit A as NOT null and void ab initio insofar
definite, certain, nor unequivocal for nowhere do they as Lasangue was concerned because it could pass
contain an admission of a guaranty made by the ownership of the lot in the south known as Lot No. 5522
defendant company for the protection of the BPI. LECHUGAS v. CA (LOZAs) which she intended to sell and actually sold to
- There may have been a mistake here. It would, G.R. No. L-39972 & L-40300 Lechugas.
however, seem to be straining the natural course of GUTIERREZ, JR; August 6, 1986
events to hold the Fidelity and Surety Company of the (ricky) ISSUE
Philippine Islands a party to that mistake. WON the CA erred in considering parol evidence over
- With all the various pleadings, all the various NATURE the objection of the petitioner in order to vary the
incidents, all the various facts, all the various legal Petition for review subject matter of the Deed of Definite Sale (Exhibit A)
principles, and all the various possibilities to the although the land therein is described and delimited by
forefront, we cannot bring ourselves to conclude that FACTS metes and bounds and indentified as Lot No. 5456 of
the plaintiff, by proof of the clearest and most - Victoria Lechugas filed a complaint for forcible entry the Lambunao Cadastre.
satisfactory character constituting more than a with damages against the Lozas, alleging that the latter
preponderance of the evidence, has established a by means of force, intimidation, strategy and stealth, HELD
mutual mistake. Instead, the proof is left far behind unlawfully entered lots A and B, corresponding to the NO.
that goal. middle and northern portion of the property owned by Ratio The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may
Dispositive Judgment appealed from reversed. her known as Lot No. 5456 which she allegedly bought not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation
from Leoncia Lasangue as evidenced by a Deed of against the other, where at least one of the parties to
SEPARATE OPINION Absolute Sale registered in the Office of the Register of the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written
Deeds (Exhibit A). She alleged that they appropriated instrument in question and does not base a claim on
AVANCEÑA, STREET, VILLAMOR and ROMUALDEZ the produce for themselves, and refused to surrender the instrument or assert a right originating in the
[dissenting] the possession of the land despite demands. The instrument or the relation established thereby.
- An examination of the indorsement, or contract shows complaint was dismissed. She appealed to the then CFI Reasoning The petitioner's reliance on the parol
that the Fidelity and Surety Company acknowledges of Iloilo. While the above appeal was pending, she evidence rule is misplaced. The rule is not applicable
that it has received value for placing its signature on instituted another action before the CFI of Iloilo for where the controversy is between one of the parties to
said indorsement, thereby nominally obligating itself to recovery and possession of the same property against the document and third persons. The deed of sale was
hold that Laguna Coconut Oil Co. (sic?) harmless the Lozas. The two cases were tried jointly. Both cases executed by Leoncia Lasangue in favor of Victoria
against loss for having discounted the note. Although were dismissed. The CA sustained the dismissal. Lechugas. The dispute over what was actually sold is
the mistake is not obvious to the superficial reader, the - Leoncia Lasangue, testifying for defendants declared between Lechugas and the Lazos. Through the
words used make an impossible situation and that she inherited 12 hectares from her parents, being testimony of Leoncia Lasangue, it was shown that what
completely frustrate the manifest intention of the the only child and heir and that on December 8, 1950, she really intended to sell and to be the subject of
parties. It is proved as a fact that the Laguna Coconut she sold 6 hectares of her inherited property to Victoria Exhibit A was Lot No. 5522 but not being able to read
Oil Co. was debtor to the Philippine Vegetable Oil Co. Lechugas under a public instrument (Exhibit A) which and write and fully relying on the good faith of her first
and that the note to which the indorsement of guaranty was prepared at the instance of Victoria Lechugas and cousin, the petitioner [walang hiyang pinsan ito ah. Tsk.
is appended was given for that indebtedness. That an thumb-marked by herself (the vendor was illiterate). ], she just placed her thumb mark on a piece of paper
error was made in the wording of the indorsement is Refuting Lechugas' contention that the land sold to her which petitioner told her was the document evidencing
obvious and undeniable. The intention of the is the very land under question, vendor Leoncia the sale of land. The deed of sale described the
contracting parties could only have been that the Lasangue was able to specifically point out that the disputed lot instead. [Note: Lechugas was also
Fidelity and Surety Company should hold harmless the land which she sold to Lechugas was the lot in the occupying Lot. No. 5522 and contended that she
person or entity discounting the note. The plaintiff did south known as Lot No. 5522 and not Lot. No. 5456 bought it from a certain Leonora Lasangue but couldn’t

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

present such person or any evidence to support this - Salonga claimed that aside fr the P35,000, etc., he Salonga to object, he is deemed to have waived benefit
claim.] also delivered P28,000 w/c is the consideration for the of parol evidence rule.
- From her testimony, there can be no other conclusion pakyaw agreement, evidenced by receipt. - Court is satisfied that P35,000 was received by Cruz
but that Lasangue did not intend to sell, as she could - Cruz testified that out of the P35,000 he received, as payment for pakyaw and sublease agreements.
not have sold, a piece of land already sold by her father P28,000 covered full payment of the pakyaw
to the predecessor-in-interest of the Lazos. agreement while P7,000 is advance payment for
- The fact that vendor Lasangue did not bring an action sublease. INCIONG V CA
for the reformation of Exhibit A is of no moment. The - TC ruled in favor of Cruz. CA reversed and ordered 257 SCRA 578
undisputed fact is that the Lazos have timely Cruz to pay Salonga. CA also found that the amounts Romero J; June 26, 1996
questioned the validity of the instrument and have were not payments for pakyaw and sublease, but for (mini)
proven that, indeed Exhibit A does not reflect the true loans extended by Salonga to Cruz.
intention of the vendor. ISSUES FACTS:
Disposition Petition is hereby DISMISSED. 1. WON Exhibit D is covered by the parol evidence rule -Petitioner's liability resulted from the promissory note
2. WON Exhibit I is covered by the parol evidence rule in the amount of P50,000.00 which he signed with Rene
HELD C. Naybe and Gregorio D. Pantanosas on February 3,
CRUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS 1. NO. 1983, holding themselves jointly and severally liable to
192 SCRA 209 - The reason for the rule is the presumption that when private respondent Philippine Bank of Communications
CRUZ; December 10, 1990 parties have reduced their agreement to writing they (PBC), Cagayan de Oro City branch. The promissory
(chriscaps) have made such writing the only repository and note was due on May 5, 1983
memorial of the truth, and whatever is not ofund in the -Due date came and obligation was left unfulfilled. PBC
writing is deemed waived or abandoned. sent telegrams to Inciong demanding payment. It also
NATURE - The rule is not applicable because it is predicated on sent a letter to Nayde. Both obligors did not respond.
Petition to review the decision of the CA existence of doc embodying terms of agreement. Thus PBC filed a suit for the collection of 50,000.
FACTS Exhibit D doesn’t contain an agreement. It is only a -Case was initially dismissed for failure of plaintiff to
- Salonga filed complaint for collection and damages receipt; not the sole memorial of the agreement. At prosecute the case. However, the lower court
against Cruz alleging that Cruz borrowed fr him most, it is a casual memorandum. reconsidered the dismissal order and required the
P35,000 evidenced by a receipt. - Wigmore: A receipt will in general fall without the line sheriff to serve the summonses. Lower court also
- Cruz claimed that only P20,000 was pd, leaving of the rule. Usually a receipt is merely a written dismissed the case against defendant Pantanosas as
balance of P15,000. He said that he and Salonga admission of a transaction, independently existing. prayed for by the private respondent herein.
agreed that Salonga would grant him exclusive right to 2. NO. Meanwhile, only the summons addressed to petitioner
purchase the harvest of certain fishponds leased by - Exhibit I doesn’t make categorical declaration that the was served as the sheriff learned that defendant Naybe
him in exchange for certain loan accommodations. P28,000 was received by Cruz on the same date. The had gone to Saudi Arabia.
- Salonga delivered to Cruz various loans totaling date then can’t be conclusive. -Inciong on his part stated that: he was approached by
P15,250 evidenced by 4 receipts and P4,000 receipt of - A distinction should be made between STATEMENT OF his friend Campos who claimed that he was a partner of
w/c was lost. Cruz failed to comply by refusing to FACT expressed in the instrument and the TERMS of the the branch manager of PBC, in the falacata logs
deliver the alleged harvest of fishpond and his contractual act. The former may be varied by parol operation. Campos also told him that Rene C. Naybe
indebtedness. evidence; not the latter. The statement in Exhibit I of was interested in the business and would contribute a
- Cruz denied contracting any loan; he alleged that he the petitioner’s receipt of P28,000 is just a statement of chainsaw to the venture. Campos then persuaded
was a lessee of fishponds owned by Yabut and that he fact, not a part of the agreement. Thus, parol evidence petitioner to act as a "co-maker" in the said loan.
agreed w/ Salonga that Salonga would purchase fish fr may be introduced to explain Exhibit I. Petitioner allegedly acceded but with the understanding
the fishpond. Salonga would also sublease the same - Even if Exhibits D and I are covered by the rule, its that he would only be a co-maker for the loan of
fishpond. application by CA was improper bec no objection was P5,000.00.
- Cruz admitted having received P35,000 but said these made by Salonga when Cruz introduced evidence to -Petitioner alleged further that five (5) copies of a blank
were received not as loans, but as consideration for the explain the circumstances. Objections to the evidence promissory note were brought to him by Campos at his
pakyaw agreement and payment for the sublease. must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become office. He affixed his signature thereto but in one copy,
- Cruz and Salonga entered into a partial stipulation of reasonably apparent. In testimonial evidence, objection he indicated that he bound himself only for the amount
facts. must be made when objectionable question is asked or of P5,000.00. Thus, it was by trickery, fraud and
after answer is given if objectionable features become misrepresentation that he was made liable for the
apparent only by reason of such answer. For failure of amount of P50,000.00.

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

-TC and CA ordered Inciong to pay amount. Inciong -Inciong claimed that since the complaint was dropped - With the 1997 Asian financial crisis sending the Phil
appealed against Naybe, his co-debtor and Pantonasa the economy into turmoil, Duvaz defaulted in the payment
guarantor, he should also be released from liability of its loan obligations with Urban Bank as they fell due.
ISSUE: WON Inciong is liable for the payment of citing Art 2080 of CC. however contention is invalid. On record, petitioner and Urban Bank mutually agreed
promissory note -the promissory note involved in this case expressly to the restructuring of the former’s indebtedness. By
states that the three signatories therein are jointly and virtue of said loan restructuring, Duvaz executed in
HELD: Yes severally liable, any one, some or all of them may be favor of Urban Bank 12 promissory notes for P20M
*RULING ON PAROL EVIDENCE proceeded against for the entire obligation. The choice each and 1 for P23M (total= P263M) with a uniform
-Inciong claimed that since the promissory note "is not is left to the solidary creditor to determine against interest rate of 18.75% per annum, and all to mature
a public deed with the formalities prescribed by law but whom he will enforce collection. Consequently, the on Oct 31, 2000.
a mere commercial paper which does not bear the dismissal of the case against Judge Pontanosas may not - EIB took over the operations of Urban Bank sometime
signature of attesting witnesses," parol evidence may be deemed as having discharged petitioner from before maturity of the restructured loans. Eventually,
"overcome" the contents of the promissory note. liability as well. As regards Naybe, suffice it to say that the restructured loans matured and became due and
The first paragraph of the parol evidence rule states: the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. demandable. Because the loans remained unpaid,
"When the terms of an agreement have been reduced Petitioner, therefore, may only have recourse against however, EIB required Duvaz to submit a mutually
to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms his co-makers, as provided by law. acceptable plan for the payment of the loan which, as
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and of June 30, 2002, already amounted to
their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms P562,157,530.02 inclusive of interest and penalty
other than the contents of the written agreement." DUVAZ CORP. V EXPORT AND INDUSTRY BANK charges. But instead of submitting any proposal for a
-the rule does not specify that the written agreement GR 163011 plan of payment, as required by EIB, Duvaz protested
be a public document. What is required is that GARCIA; June 7, 2007 the total amount of obligation being demanded upon.
agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded (bri) - Aug 8, 2002: EIB sent a final demand letter to Duvaz
on "long experience that written evidence is so much to settle its debts.
more certain and accurate than that which rests in NATURE - Aug 29: On account of said demand letter, Duvaz filed
fleeting memory only, that it would be unsafe, when Petition for review (Rule 45, ROC) of the CA Decision in the Makati RTC against EIB a complaint for
parties have expressed the terms of their contract in dated March 26, 2004, nullifying an earlier Order of reformation of instrument with prayer for a TRO and/or
writing, to admit weaker evidence to control and vary the Makati RTC w/c granted petitioner’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin EIB, as
the stronger and to show that the parties intended a writ of preliminary injunction in its action for defendant in the suit, from commencing any
different contract from that expressed in the writing reformation of instrument against herein respondent, foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged properties of
signed by them. Thus, for the parol evidence rule to Export and Industry Bank (EIB). Duvaz as plaintiff. In its complaint, Duvaz alleged that
apply, a written contract need not be in any particular its real agreement of dacion en pago with Urban Bank
form, or be signed by both parties. As a general rule, FACTS (EIB’s predecessor-in-interest), w/c agreement was
bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature - During the period 1994-1995, RDR Property Holdings, intended for the full and complete settlement of its
are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parol or Inc. (RDR), which was a subsidiary of petitioner Duvaz entire obligation, was not reflected in the loan-
extrinsic evidence. Corp (Duvaz) until it was eventually absorbed by the restructuring agreement that was entered into in 1998,
-By alleging fraud in his answer, petitioner was actually latter, obtained various loans from the then Urban hence, the need to modify the terms thereof to reflect
in the right direction towards proving that he and his Banking Corporation (Urban Bank) to finance its real the parties’ true intention.
co-makers agreed to a loan of P5,000.00 only, estate business. These loans were secured by real - Pending determination of the merit of petitioner’s
considering that, where a parol contemporaneous estate mortgages on 17 condominium units and 30 prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, the parties
agreement was the inducing and moving cause of the parking slots at The Peak Condominium in Makati City. mutually agreed to maintain the status quo ante. TC,
written contract, it may be shown by parol evidence. - Sometime after it declared a bank holiday on April 25, therefore, found no need to issue any TRO.
However, fraud must be established by clear and 2000, Urban Bank was acquired and merged with - Eventually, however, via an Order dated Sep 25,
convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence, respondent EIB. 2002, the court granted the preliminary injunction
not even being adequate. Petitioner's attempt to prove - Meanwhile, as a consequence of RDR being absorbed prayed for by Duvaz, to wit:
fraud must, therefore, fail as it was evidenced only by by Duvaz, the latter acquired all the assets and WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and equity,
his own uncorroborated and, expectedly, self-serving liabilities of the former, more specifically RDR’s loan the Court GRANTS the injunction prayed for and
testimony. obligations with Urban Bank, which loan obligations accordingly orders defendant [to refrain] from
*other contentions were later transferred to EIB as a result of the initiating any foreclosure proceedings until further
corporate merger of the 2 banks.

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

orders from this Court. Bond fixed at P10M. (Words in Ratio Anent the first issue, the requisites for Every court should remember that an injunction
brackets added.) preliminary injunctive relief are: (a) the invasion of is a limitation upon the freedom of action of the
- EIB’s MFR denied by the court in its subsequent order right sought to be protected is material and substantial; defendant and should not be granted lightly or
of Jan 8, 2003. Therefrom, EIB went to the CA on a (b) the right of the plaintiff is clear and unmistakable; precipitately. It should be granted only when the
petition for certiorari wherein said court promulgated and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and
the assailed Decision, thus: the writ to prevent serious damage. As such, a writ of the emergency demands it.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear We are in full accord with the CA when it struck down,
petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. showing of an actual existing right to be protected for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion,
Accordingly, the assailed orders are ANNULLED AND during the pendency of the principal action. The twin RTC’s Order granting petitioner’s prayer for a writ of
SET ASIDE and a new one issued DENYING requirements of a valid injunction are the existence of preliminary injunction during the pendency of the main
[petitioner’s] prayer for a writ of preliminary a right and its actual or threatened violation. Thus, to case. The reason therefor is that the right sought to be
injunction. be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected by the petitioner in this case through the
- In granting EIB’s certiorari petition and nullifying the protected and the violation against that right must be writ of preliminary injunction is merely contingent and
questioned orders of the TC, CA notes Duvaz’ failure to shown. not in esse. It bears stressing that the existing written
show in its complaint and at the hearing of its Reasoning Almeida v. CA: contract between petitioner and respondent was
application for preliminary injunction the indubitable It must be stressed that injunction is not designed admittedly one of loan restructuring; there is no
existence of its right to the injunctive relief: to protect contingent or future rights, and, as such, mention whatsoever or even a slightest reference in
In the case at bar, [petitioner] sought to enjoin the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of that written contract to a supposed agreement of
[respondent] from foreclosing its mortgage properties actual existing right is no ground for an injunction. A dacion en pago. In fine, it is still necessary for
on the ground that their alleged agreement entered clear and positive right especially calling for judicial petitioner to establish in the main case its rights on the
into in 1998 is in reality a dacion en pago and not a protection must be established. Injunction is not a alleged dacion en pago before those rights become in
loan-restructuring agreement which is the written remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or esse or actual and existing. Only then can the
contract. In short, [petitioner’s] alleged right emanates future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in injunctive writ be properly issued. It cannot be the
from an alleged dacion en pago which is yet to be esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an other way around. Otherwise, it will be like putting the
proven in Court. This right is, therefore, contingent and action which did not give rise to a cause of action. cart before the horse.
future which cannot be protected by a writ of There must be an existence of an actual right. Besides, conformably to the Parol Evidence Rule,
preliminary injunction. Moreover, the parol evidence Hence, where the plaintiff’s right or title is doubtful which is the general rule, when the terms of an
rule proscribes the varying of the terms of a or disputed, injunction is not proper. agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
written agreement except in certain cases. An injunctive remedy may only be resorted to considered as containing all the terms agreed
[Petitioner] claims that its case falls under the when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious upon and there can be, as between the parties
exception, but then this is harping on the exception, consequences which cannot be remedied under any and their successors in interest, no evidence of
not the rule, which is yet to be proven during trial. If standard compensation. The possibility of such terms other than the contents of the written
indeed, there is such an agreement as dacion en pago, irreparable damage without proof of an actual agreement. This poses another big obstacle to a
then only at that time can we say that [petitioner] existing right would not justify injunctive relief in his favorable finding of petitioner’s right in esse under the
possesses the right to be protected. But of course, this favor. alleged dacion en pago agreement. Again, petitioner
is merely conjectural and a future proposition, if not x x x x x x x x x must first establish that alleged agreement in the main
assumption, which is, however, insufficient to support x x x. In the absence of a clear legal right, the case where it bears the burden of duly proving by
the grant of a writ of preliminary injunction. (Words in issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave competent evidence that the written loan restructuring
brackets supplied.) abuse of discretion. As the Court had the occasion to agreement failed to express the true intent of the
state in Olalia v. Hizon: parties. Until and unless this has been successfully
ISSUE/S It has been consistently held that there is no carried out, there is no right in esse to speak of. And
1. WON there exists a right in esse on petitioner’s part power the exercise of which is more delicate, with EIB denying petitioner’s allegation of a right
which may rightfully be the basis for the issuance of a which requires greater caution, deliberation and arising from an alleged dacion en pago agreement
writ of preliminary injunction sound discretion, or more dangerous in a doubtful supposedly entered into by it not with EIB itself, but
2. WON EIB’s recourse to the CA constitutes forum case, than the issuance of an injunction. It is the with Urban Bank, petitioner’s burden becomes doubly
shopping strong arm of equity that should never be cumbersome.
extended unless to cases of great injury, where We find no such actual and existing right in favor of the
HELD courts of law cannot afford an adequate or petitioner that demands protection by the office of
1. NO. commensurate remedy in damages. preliminary injunction.

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

2. NO. - Counsel for defendant insisted that the witness was accused persons against statements made in the
Reasoning EIB assailed TC’s order directing the competent; that the parties to the prosecution of a confidence engendered by the marital relation, and to
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction by filing a criminal case are the Government and the accused; relieve the husband or wife to whom such confidential
petition for certiorari with the CA. Seeking a reversal of that, furthermore the marriage of Dinal to the witness communications might have been made from the
an adverse judgment or order by appeal or certiorari having been dissolved by the death of her husband, she obligation of revealing them to the prejudice of the
does not constitute forum shopping. Such remedies is no longer his wife, and so not subject to any other spouse. Such is not the case at bar.
are sanctioned and provided for by the rules. There will disqualification arising from the status of marriage.
only be forum shopping when a party seeks a favorable - Objection sustained. To this objection counsel took 2 NO.
opinion, other than by appeal or certiorari, in another exception and made an offer to prove by the excluded Ratio: It can not be contended that the dying
forum. There is simply no rhyme nor reason to tag as witness the facts which he expected to establish by her declaration testified to by the witness was a
forum shopping EIB’s availment of a remedy provided testimony. Concerning these facts it is sufficient at this confidential communication made to her; on the
under the rules in a situation where, as here, the RTC time to say that some of them would be both material contrary, it was evidently made in the furtherance of
clearly gravely abused its discretion. and relevant, to such a degree that if proven to the justice for the express purpose that it should be
Besides, the function of certiorari before the CA is only satisfaction of the court, they might have lead to the testified to in the prosecution of the defendant. (Arnett
to annul the assailed interlocutory order of the trial acquittal of the accused, as they purported to relate to vs. Commonwealth, 114 Ky., 593, 596)
court and nothing else. The CA cannot go beyond the the dying declarations of the deceased, concerning the Reasoning: Obviously, when a person at the point of
said assailed interlocutory order and dismiss the main cause of his death, the general purport being that his death as a result of injuries he has suffered makes a
action which has not yet been resolved with finality. injuries were due to fall and not to the acts imputed to statement regarding the manner in which he received
Disposition WHEREFORE, the instant petition is the accused. those injuries, the communication so made is in no
DENIED and the assailed CA Decision dated 26 March sense confidential. On the contrary, such a
2004 is AFFIRMED in toto. ISSUES communication is made for the express purpose that it
1 WON the widow Susan Ezpeleta was disqualified as a may be communicated after the death of the declarant
witness by reason of marriage to the authorities concerned in inquiring into the cause
2 WON the dying declaration of the victim to his wife of his death.
Disqualification by Reason of Marriage constitute privileged communication - The declarations of a deceased person while in
anticipation of certain impending death, concerning the
PEOPLE VS FRANCISCO HELD circumstances leading up to the death, are admissible
(yella) 1 NO. in a prosecution of the person charged with killing the
Ratio: On grounds of public policy the wife can not declarant. (U. S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530.) Such dying
testify against her husband as to what came to her declarations are admissible in favor of the defendant as
U.S. V ANTIPOLO from him confidentially or by reason of the marriage well as against him. (Mattox vs. U. S., 146 U. S., 140.) It
G.R. No. L-13109 relation, but this rule does not apply to a dying has been expressly held in several jurisdictions in the
FISHER; March 6, 1918 communication made by the husband to the wife on the United States that the widow of the deceased may
(rean) trial of the one who killed him. The declaration of the testify regarding his dying declarations.
deceased made in extremes in such cases is a thing to
be proven, and this proof may be made by any Disposition: Judgment of the court below is hereby
FACTS competent witness who heard the statement. The wife SET ASIDE and a new trial is granted at which the
- The appellant Antipolo was convicted by CFI Batangas, may testify for the state in cases of this character as to testimony of the witness Susana Ezpeleta will be
for the murder of one Fortunato Dinal. He appealed. any other fact known to her (Arnett vs. Commonwealth, admitted.
One error assigned is based upon the refusal of the trial 114 Ky., 593, 596)
judge to permit Susana Ezpeleta, the widow of victim Reasoning: Sec. 58 of Gen. Orders No. 58 (1900)
Dinal, to testify as a witness on behalf of the defense states that: Except with the consent of both, or except ALVAREZ V. RAMIREZ
concerning certain alleged dying declarations. At the in cases of crime committed by one against the other, GR No. 143439;
witness stand she stated that she is the widow of neither husband nor wife shall be a competent witness Sandoval-Gutierrez; 14 October 2005
Fortunato Dinal, and was asked: "On what occasion did for or against the other in a criminal action or (ice)
your husband die?" To this question the fiscal objected proceeding to which one or both shall be parties.
upon the ground that the witness is disqualified from - This case does not fall with the text of the statute or NATURE
testifying in this case in which her husband is the the reason upon which it is based, and therefore it is Petition for review on certiorari
injured party. inapplicable. The purpose of Sec. 58 is to protect

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

FACTS remotely or indirectly affecting domestic harmony Disqualification by Reason of Death and Insanity
Susan Ramirez (respondent) is the complaining witness comes within the exception is too broad. The better
in the criminal case for arson pending before the RTC. rule is that, when an offense directly attacks, or directly LICHAUCO VS ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC CO.
The accused is Maximo Alvarez (petitioner). He is the and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes (monch)
husband of Esperanza G. Alvarez, sister of respondent. within the exception to the statute that one shall not be
Private prosecutor called Esperanza Alvarez to the a witness against the other except in a criminal GOÑI V CA (VICENTE)
witness stand as the first witness against petitioner, her prosecution for a crime committee (by) one against the G.R. No. L-27434
husband. Petitioner and his counsel raised no other.’” FERNAN; September 23, 1986
objection.Petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion to Obviously, the offense of arson attributed to (Anton)
disqualify Esperanza from testifying against him petitioner, directly impairs the conjugal relation
pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on between him and his wife Esperanza. His act, as NATURE
marital disqualification. embodied in the Information for arson filed This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the
Trial court issued an Order disqualifying Esperanza against him, eradicates all the major aspects of then CA, as well as from the resolution denying
Alvarez from further testifying and deleting her marital life such as trust, confidence, respect and petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
testimony from the records.CA reversed the RTC love by which virtues the conjugal relationship
decision. survives and flourishes. FACTS
“The act of private respondent in setting fire to the - The 3 haciendas known as San Sebastian, Sarria and
ISSUE house of his sister-in-law Susan Ramirez, knowing fully Dulce Nombre de Maria situated in the Bais, Negros
WON Esperanza Alvarez can testify against her well that his wife was there, and in fact with the alleged Oriental, were originally owned by TABACALERA.
husband intent of injuring the latter, is an act totally alien to - Sometime in 1949, the late Praxedes T. Villanueva,
the harmony and confidences of marital relation predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, negotiated with
HELD/ RATIO which the disqualification primarily seeks to TABACALERA for the purchase of said haciendas.
Yes. Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court protect. The criminal act complained of had the However, as he did not have sufficient funds to pay the
has an exception, where the marital and domestic effect of directly and vitally impairing the price, Villanueva with the consent of TABACALERA,
relations are so strained that there is no more harmony conjugal relation. It underscored the fact that the offered to sell Hacienda Sarria to one Santiago
to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may marital and domestic relations between her and the Villegas, who was later substituted by Joaquin Villegas.
be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and accused-husband have become so strained that there is TABACALERA did not agree to the transaction between
tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests no more harmony, peace or tranquility to be preserved. Villanueva and Villegas without a guaranty; thus
disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based The Supreme Court has held that in such a case, Gaspar Vicente (herein respondent) stood as
on that identity is non-existent. Likewise, in such a identity is non-existent. In such a situation, the guarantor for Villegas in favor of TABACALERA.
situation, the security and confidences of private life, security and confidences of private life which the law - Either because the amount realized from the
which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but aims to protect are nothing but ideals which through transaction between Villanueva and Villegas still fell
ideals, which through their absence, merely leave a their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy short of the purchase price of the three haciendas, or in
void in the unhappy home. This is in lieu of the home. (People v. Castañeda, 271 SCRA 504). Thus, consideration of the guaranty undertaken by Vicente,
justification for the rule which are there is no longer any reason to apply the Marital Villanueva contracted or promised to sell to
1. There is identity of interests between husband and Disqualification Rule.” Vicente fields nos. 3, 4 and 13 of Hacienda Dulce
wife; It should be stressed that as shown by the records, Nombre de Maria for the sum of P13,807.00. This
2. If one were to testify for or against the other, prior to the commission of the offense, the relationship agreement was reduced to writing and signed by
there is consequent danger of perjury; between petitioner and his wife was already strained. Genaro Goñi (petitioner) as attorney-in-fact of
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and In fact, they were separated de facto almost six months Villanueva.
confidences of private life, even at the risk of an before the incident. Indeed, the evidence and facts - Vicente thereafter advised TABACALERA to debit from
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic presented reveal that the preservation of the marriage his account the amount of P13,807.00 as payment for
disunion and unhappiness; and between petitioner and Esperanza is no longer an the balance of the purchase price. However, as only the
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there interest the State aims to protect. amount of P12,460.24 was actually needed to complete
is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile the purchase price, only the latter amount was debited
testimony of the other. DISPOSITION from Vicente’s account. The difference was supposedly
In Ordoño vs. Daquigan, this Court held: ‘The rule that AFFIRMED paid by Vicente to Villanueva, but as no receipt
the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the evidencing such payment was presented in court, this
person is too narrow; and the rule that any offense fact was disputed by petitioners.

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

- Subsequent to the execution of the contract/promise - On October 25, 1954, petitioner Goni as defendant in - Under ordinary circumstances, respondent Vicente
to sell, Villanueva was able to raise funds by selling a Civil Case No. 2990, filed an answer with counterclaim would be disqualified by reason of interest from
property. He thus went to private respondent Vicente for accounting of the produce of fields nos. 4 and 13, as testifying as to any matter of fact occurring before the
for the purpose of rescinding the contract/promise to well as the surrender thereof. After an answer to the death of Praxedes T. Villanueva, such disqualification
sell. However, as the amount of P12,460.24 had counterclaim had been filed, private respondent being anchored on Section 20(a) of Rule 130,
already been debited from private respondent's Vicente amended his complaint on September 1, 1955, commonly known as the Survivorship Disqualification
account, it was agreed that lots 4 and 13 of the to include a prayer for damages representing the Rule or Dead Man Statute, which provides as follows:
Hacienda Dulce Nombre de Maria would merely be produce of field no. 3 from 1949-50 until delivery
leased to private respondent Vicente for a period of thereof to him. An answer with counterclaim to the Section 20. Disqualification by reason of interest or
five years at an annual rental of 15% of the gross amended complaint was duly filed, and on April 25, relationship.-The following persons cannot testify as
income, said rent to be deducted from the money 1956, private respondent Vicente amended his to matters in which they are interested, directly or
advanced by Vicente and any balance owing to complaint anew to include as parties-defendants the indirectly, as herein enumerated:
Villanueva would be delivered by Vicente heirs of the late Praxedes Villanueva. (a) Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons
together with the lots at the end of the - July 13, 1957: the parties entered into a stipulation of in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an
stipulated period of lease. facts, agreeing, among others, on the costs of executor or administrator or other representative of a
- December 10, 1949: TABACALERA executed a formal production and produce of the three fields in question. deceased person, or against a person of unsound
deed of sale covering the three haciendas in favor of The case thereafter proceeded to trial. Defendants mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of
Villanueva. Fields Nos. 3, 4 and 13 of the Hacienda presented Genaro Goñi, who testified on the alleged such deceased person or against such person of
Dulce Nombre de Maria were thereafter registered in verbal lease agreement. unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact
the name of Villanueva. The fields were likewise - Trial court rendered a decision ordering therein occurring before the death of such deceased person
mortgaged by Villanueva to the Rehabilitation Finance defendants-heirs to deliver to Gaspar Vicente field no 3, or before such person became of unsound mind.
Corporation (RFC), later transferred to the PNB. to execute a formal deed of sale covering fields nos. 3,
- Fields nos. 4 and 13 were delivered to private 4 and 13 in favor of Vicente. - The object and purpose of the rule is to guard
respondent Vicente after the 1949-1950 milling season - Both parties appealed the decision to the then Court against the temptation to give false testimony in
in January and February, 1950. of Appeals. CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. regard to the transaction in question on the part
- June 17, 1950: Villanueva executed a "Documento de of the surviving party and further to put the two
la Venta Definitive" in favor of Joaquin Villegas, Petitioner’s Claim parties to a suit upon terms of equality in regard
covering Lot No. 314 of the Cadastral Survey of Bais - Hacienda Dulce Nombre de Maria would merely be to the opportunity of giving testimony. It is
(Hacienda Sarria). A supplemental instrument was later leased. designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff when
executed by Villanueva in favor of Villegas to include in death has closed the lips of the party defendant, in
the sale of June 17, 1950 the sugar quota of the land. ISSUE(S) order to remove from the surviving party the
- November 12, 1951: Villanueva died. Intestate 1. WON Vicente may testify on matters of fact temptation to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious
proceedings were instituted on November 24, 1951 occurring before the death of Praxedes Villanueva, claims against the deceased.
before the then CFI of Negros. Among the properties which constitutes a claim or demand upon his - The defendants-heirs are properly the
included in the inventory submitted to the court estate. "representatives" of the deceased, not only because
were fields nos. 3, 4 and 13 of Hacienda Dulce 2. WON a written promise to sell dated October 1949 they succeeded to the decedent's right by descent or
Nombre de Maria. be novated into a verbal agreement of lease during operation of law, but more importantly because they
- On the day before the intestate proceedings were the lifetime of the promissory, whose death are so placed in litigation that they are called on to
ordered closed and the estate of the late Praxedes occurred on November 1951, by facts and defend which they have obtained from the deceased
Villanueva delivered to his heirs, respondent Vicente circumstances substantiated by competent oral and make the defense which the deceased might have
instituted an action for recovery of property and evidence. made if living, or to establish a claim which the
damages before the then CFI of Negros Oriental against deceased might have been interested to establish, if
petitioner Goñi in his capacity as administrator of the HELD living.
intestate estate of Praxedes Villanueva. Vicente sought 1. YES (General Rule ay HINDI) - HOWEVER, such protection was effectively waived
to recover field no. 3 of the Hacienda Dulce Nombre de when counsel for petitioners cross-examined private
Ratio The protection was waived. And the
Maria, basing his entitlement thereto on the respondent Vicente. A waiver occurs when
disadvantage sought to be prevented by the law does
contract/promise to sell executed by the late plaintiff's deposition is taken by the
not exist in the said case.
Praxedes Villanueva in his favor on October 24, representative of the estate or when counsel for
1949. the representative cross-examined the plaintiff

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

as to matters occurring during deceased's lifetime of Villanueva that the latter execute a similar attention to the lots above-mentioned and told him that
lifetime. document in his favor, or causing notice of his adverse he could buy the lots for P20,000, the amount which
- The inequality or injustice sought to be avoided by claim to be annotated on the certificate of title of said Ong Chua paid for them to Teck and Lim. Carr entered
Section 20(a) of Rule 130, where one of the parties no lots. into negotiations with Ong Chua and Moore, and many
longer has the opportunity to either confirm or rebut - The verbal lease agreement was negotiated by and conversations took place in which Moore, among other
the testimony of the other because death has between Villanueva and private respondent Vicente things, informed Carr that Teck and his wife had the
permanently sealed the former's lips, does not themselves. Being close friends and relatives it can be right to repurchase the property in question from Ong
actually exist in the case at bar, for the reason safely assumed that they did not find it necessary to Chua and that such rights would expire in June, 1927.
that petitioner Goñi could and did not negate the reduce the same into writing. -Dec 14, 1925: Ong Chua and Carr went to the office of
binding effect of the contract/promise to sell. - Petitioners, having clearly and sufficiently shown that Moore, to whom they delivered copies of the
- The petitioners presented a counterclaim against the contract/promise to sell was subsequently novated documents under which Teck and Lim acquired their
private respondent Vicente. When Vicente thus took into a verbal lease agreement, it follows that they are rights to repurchase the property involved, and
the witness stand, it was in a dual capacity as plaintiff entitled to a favorable decision on their counterclaim. requested him to draw the deed of sale of the property
in the action for recovery of property and as defendant from Ong Chua to Carr. Before the drafting of the deed,
in the counterclaim for accounting and surrender of DISPOSITION Ong Chua stated to Moore that he consented to sell the
fields nos. 4 and 13. Evidently, as defendant in the The decision appealed from is hereby reversed. properties to Carr on the condition that the sale should
counterclaim, he was not disqualified from testifying as be subject to the rights of Teck and Lim to have the
to matters of fact occurring before the death of property reconveyed to them and that said rights were
Praxedes Villanueva, said action not having been to be respected by the vendee. According to Moore's
brought against, but by the estate or representatives of own testimony, Carr was fully aware of those rights
the estate/deceased person. ONG CHUA vs. CARR even before the execution of the deed and that he
- The adverse party is competent to testify to 53 PHIL 980 consented to embody stipulations to that effect in said
transactions or communications with the deceased or OSTRAND; Jan 17, 1929 deed.
incompetent person which were made with an agent of (marge) -The purchase price of the property stipulated between
such person in cases in which the agent is still alive and vendor and vendee was P20,000. When the deed of
competent to testify. But the testimony of the adverse NATURE sale was about to be drafted, Carr informed Moore that
party must be confined to those transactions or Appeal by the defendants from a CFI Zamboanga he had only P13,500 on hand and that he desired to
communications which were had with the agent. Goñi decision obtain a loan of P6,500 from the Zamboanga Mutual
was attorney-in-fact of Praxedes. He was privy to the Building and Loan Association of which Moore was the
circumstances surrounding the contract, and could FACTS secretary. Moore told him in effect that the loan could
therefore confirm or deny the allegations of Vicente. -Lots Nos. 136 and 137 and the house on lot No. 132 not be made upon property the titles to which were not
originally belonged to one Henry E. Teck, and lot No. clear and that the right of Teck and Lim to repurchase
2. There was novation. 135 was the property of Teck's wife, Magdalena Lim. were not entered upon the certificates of title to the
Reasoning Sometime prior to June 20, 1923, it seems that the property. Moore also told Carr that the deed of sale
- The novation of the written contract/promise to sell spouses sold the property in question to plaintiff Ong could be made in such a form that Carr's title to the
into a verbal agreement of lease was clearly and Chua, and on June 17, 1923, the latter executed a property purchased would appear to be absolute but
convincingly proven not only by the testimony of public document granting to Lim the right to that Carr was to bear in mind that the rights of Teck
petitioner Goñi, but likewise by the acts and conduct of repurchase lot 135 for the sum of P6,500 within four and Lim still existed and that the deed and other
the parties subsequent to the execution of the years from that date, and on the 20th of the same documents must be left in his, Moore's, possession until
contract/promise to sell. Thus, after the milling season month, he executed another public document in which the expiration of the term for the right of repurchase
of crop year 1949-50, only fields nos. 4 and 13 were he agreed to sell lots Nos. 136, 137, and the house on and that, if the deed were made in that form, the loan
delivered to private respondent Vicente. Fields nos. 3, 4 lot 132 to Teck for the sum of P13,500 at any time of P6,500 could be obtained.
and 13 were subsequently registered in Villanueva's within four years from date. Neither one of the -Moore thereupon instructed his clerk to prepare and
name and mortgaged with the RFC. Villanueva likewise documents was placed on record with the register of typewrite the deed of sale without including therein the
executed a deed of sale covering Hacienda Sarria in deeds. condition that the sale was subject to Teck's and Lim's
favor of Joaquin Villegas. All these were known to -July, 1925: Edward Carr came to Zamboanga, went to rights to repurchase. The deed was signed by Ong Chua
private respondent Vicente, yet he did not take any the office of Moore and sought the advice and in the presence of Darlucio and duly acknowledged
steps toward asserting and/or protecting his claim over assistance of the latter in regard to purchasing coconut before Moore as notary public. It may be noted that
fields nos. 3, 4 and 13 either by demanding during the lands. After various interviews, Moore called Carr's Ong Chua did not understand English and was therefore

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

ignorant of the arrangement arrived at between Moore general issue and setting up as special defenses that -Tongco vs. Vianzon: "The object and purpose of this
and Carr in connection with the loan, but he asked the deed in question contained no stipulation as to statute is to guard against the temptation to give false
Moore if the document contained the conditions in rights of repurchase and that if there was any testimony in regard to the transaction in question on
reference to Teck's right to repurchase the property agreement or promise on the part of the defendant to the part of the surviving party. An equally important
and was told that the document was sufficient. convey the property to Teck and Lim or to the plaintiff, rule is that the law was designed to aid in arriving at
-After the deed was prepared and signed, Ong Chua as alleged in the complaint, such agreement and the truth and was not designed to suppress the truth."
told Carr and Moore that lot No. 137 was mortgaged by promise was for the sale of real property, or an interest -A number of credible witnesses testified to facts which
him to the Bank of the Philippine Islands for P6,500, the therein, and that neither said agreement or promise, conclusively showed that Carr's conduct was tainted
rate of interest being 10 per cent per annum. Moore nor any note or memorandum was made in writing or with fraud. Plaintiff did not take the witness stand until
stated that the Zamboanga Building and Loan subscribed by the defendant or by any authorized after the existence of fraud on the part of Carr had
Association could not lend money at less than 13 per person for him. Subsequent to the filing of the answer, been established beyond a doubt and not by a mere
cent per annum. Ong Chua then stated that he was Carr died, and the administrator of his estate, Manuel preponderance of evidence. In these circumstances, we
willing to let the mortgage on the lot given to the bank Igual, was substituted as defendant. At the trial of the cannot hold that the trial court erred in not excluding
stand until the expiration of the term for the case, no evidence was offered by the defendant, and, the plaintiff's testimony.
repurchases. As this arrangement would save Carr a consequently, the facts hereinbefore stated stand
considerable sum of money, he agreed to the uncontradicted. Upon such facts, CFI Zamboanga 2. YES. Reformation will be given "where there is a
proposition and paid only P13,500 in cash and ordered the reformation of the deed. Hence, this mistake on one side and fraud or unfair dealing on the
promised, in writing, to pay to the vendor the balance appeal. other."
of the purchase price, P6,500, with interest at 10 per -Counsel admits that the deed was left in escrow with
cent per annum, on or before July 1, 1927. The loan ISSUES Moore. It is well settled that the condition upon which a
from the Building and Loan Association thus became 1. WON the court erred in permitting Ong Chua, to deed is delivered in escrow may be proved by parol
unnecessary, but instead of redrafting the deed, it was testify to facts occurring prior to the death of the evidence and that ordinarily the statute of frauds has
agreed that Moore would keep the deed and the other defendant Carr no application to such an agreement, nor is it affected
documents in his custody and would not deliver them 2. WON the facts proven justify the reformation of the by the rule of evidence, which prohibits a written
to any one until the expiration of the period for deed in question. contract from being contradicted or varied by parol
repurchase. evidence. It is also well established that an escrow
-Sept 1926: Moore was taken critically ill, and while he HELD delivered without authority or obtained fraudulently
was under medical treatment in the Zamboanga 1. NO passes no title.
Hospital, Carr came to him on various occasions and -Section 383.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars -That is what occurred here; Moore had no authority
demanded that the documents be delivered to him. At parties to an action or proceeding against an executor whatever to deliver the deed in escrow to Carr before
first Moore refused to make the delivery on the ground or administrator or other representative of a deceased the expiration of the time for redemption. It follows that
that it was contrary to their agreement and might person upon a claim or demand against the estate of the certificates of title issued to Carr were of no legal
result to the prejudice of the rights of Teck and Lim, but such deceased person from testifying as to any matter effect and that the suit for the rescission of the deed
Carr continued to molest Moore with his demand for the of fact occurring before the death of such deceased and the cancellation of the corresponding certificates of
delivery of the papers, and finally, in order to escape person. title would be in order (see the last two provisos in sec.
further annoyances and insinuations of Carr, he BUT it has generally been given a liberal construction 55 of Act No. 496).
surrendered the deed to the latter, who almost to promote justice, and it is held that it never was -The evidence is conclusive that the plaintiff had no
immediately presented it to the register of deeds for intended to serve as a shield for fraud. clear conception of the contents of the deed. That he
registration. -Jones on Evidence: "The evidence of an adverse party was anxious to protect the rights of redemption held by
-July, 1926: Teck offered to repurchase the property in is absolutely excluded by an independent, affirmative the parties who sold the land to him, is very obvious;
question from Ong Chua who thereupon demanded of enactment making him incompetent as to transactions indeed, if he had failed to do so, he would have laid
Carr the reconveyance of the property to the spouses, or communications with a deceased or incompetent himself open to an action for damages. But the deed
Teck and Lim, but Carr refused to do so, claiming that person. These statutes, however, do not render the was written in the English language, with which the
he had an absolute title to said property, and Ong Chua adverse party incompetent to testify to fraudulent plaintiff was unfamiliar, and he had to rely on the
then learned, for the first time, that the deed in transactions of the deceased, as the statutes are not statements of Moore as to the contents and effect of
question contained no reference to the rights of Teck designed to shield wrongdoers but the courts compel the deed and was told that the document was
and Lim to repurchase the property. the adverse party to clearly establish the alleged sufficient.
-This action was brought. Defendant’s demurrer was fraudulent acts before admitting such testimony." -Carr, on the other hand, knew the contents of the deed
overruled. He thereupon filed an answer pleading the and fully agreed to Moore's plan to place it in escrow

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

until the expiration of the term for the repurchase or - Counsel for both plaintiffs filed their claims with the 3. Did you ever ask him to send you a statement of
redemption of the land. He, nevertheless, in violation of committee of claims and appraisal of the estate of your account — Yes, several times by letter, but I never
his own agreement, harassed Moore, then a very sick Benigno Goitia, and, upon their disallowance, appealed received an answer.
man, into giving him possession of the deed from the committee's decision by means of the
prematurely. He took immediate advantage of that complaints in these two cases. ISSUE
circumstance and hastened to have the document - The court below ordered the defendant, as judicial WON the appellees' depositions are admissible.
presented to the register of deeds for the issuance of administratrix of Benigno Goitia's estate to render a
certificates of title. It is elementary that such conduct judicial account of the intestate estate of the deceased HELD
constitutes fraud and was calculated to obtain an unfair Benigno Goitia, to render an account of the amounts YES. The first of these questions tends to show the
advantage over the plaintiff. collected by her aforesaid husband as attorney-in-fact relationship between the principals and their attorney-
and representative of the plaintiffs in the copartnership in-fact Benigno Goitia up to 1914. Supposing it was
from 1915 to July, 1926, within thirty days from notice error to permit such a question, it would not be
of this decision reversible error, for that very relationship is proved by
MENDEZONA V VIUDA DE GOITIA - Defendant, reiterating her exception to the court's the Exhibits . - As to the other two questions, it is to be
March 11, 1930; VILLAMOR, J. decision enjoining her to render accounts, manifested noted that the deponents deny having received from
(lora) that after a painstaking examination of the books of the deceased Benigno Goitia any money on account of
account of the copartnership and several attempts to profits on their shares, since 1915. We are of opinion
FACTS obtain data from Ruperto Santos, the manager and that the claimants' denial that a certain fact occurred
- Defendant Encarnacion C. Vda, de Goitia has been administrator thereof, she has found no more evidence before the death of their attorney-in-fact Benigno
duly appointed judicial administratrix of the estate of of any amount received by her late husband than a Agoitia does not come within the legal prohibitions
her deceased husband Benigno Goitia book of accounts where she came upon an item of P90 (section 383, No. 7, Code of Civil Procedure).
- Benigno Goitia was the representative and attorney- for Leonor Mendezona, and another of P36 for Valentina - The law prohibits a witness directly interested in a
in-fact of the plaintiffs in the joint-account partnership Izaguirre. claim against the estate of a decedent from testifying
known as the Tren de Aguadas, of which the plaintiff - The court ordered the defendant, as judicial upon a matter of fact which took place before the death
Leonor Mendezona, widow of Juan Bautista Goitia, owns administratrix of the estate of the deceased Benigno of the deceased. The underlying principle of this
180 shares worth P18,000, and the plaintiff Valentina Goitia, to pay the plaintiff Leonor Mendezona the sum prohibition is to protect the intestate estate from
Izaguirre y Nazabal owns 72 shares worth P7,200 of P13,140 with legal interest from the date of the filing fictitious claims. But this protection should not be
- Prior to 1915, Benigno Goitia, at that time the of the complaint, and to pay the plaintiff Valentina treated as an absolute bar or prohibition from the filing
manager of the co-partnership, collected the dividends Izaguirre P5,256 likewise with legal interest from the of just claims against the decedent's estate.
for the plaintiffs, which he remitted to them every year. date of the filing of the complaint, and moreover, to - The facts in the case of Maxilom vs. Tabotabo differ
That the usual dividends which Benigno Goitia pay the costs of both instances. from those in the case at bar.
forwarded to plaintiff Leonor Mendezona each year - The defendant appealed from this judgment. - Maxilom vs. Tabotabo: the plaintiff Maxilom liquidated
were P540, and to plaintiff Valentina Izaguirre y -The appellees made depositions before the American his accounts with the deceased Tabotabo during his
Nazabal, P216 consul at Bilbao, Spain, in accordance with section 356 lifetime, with the result that there was a balance in his
- From 1915 until his death in August, 1926, Benigno of the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel for the favor and against Tabotabo of P312.37, Mexican
Goitia failed to remit the dividends appellant was notified of the taking of these currency. The liquidation was signed by both Maxilom
- Some time before his death, more particularly, in July, depositions, and he did not suggest any other and Tabotabo. In spite of this, some years later, or in
1926, Benigno Goitia, who was no longer the manager interrogatory in addition to the questions of the 1906, Maxilom filed a claim against the estate of
of the said business, receive as attorney-in-fact of both committee. When these depositions were read in court, Tabotabo for P1,062.37alleging that P750 which
plaintiff, the amount of P90 as dividend upon plaintiff the defendant objected to their admission, invoking included the 1899 liquidation had not really been
Leonor Mendezona's shares, and P36 upon Valentina section 383, No. 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Her received, and that therefore instead of P312.37,
Izaguirre y Nazabal's stock objection referred mainly to the following questions: Mexican currency, that liquidation should have shown a
- During the period from 1915 to 1926, Benigno Goitia 1. Did Mr. Benigno Goitia render you an account of your balance of P1,062.37 in favor of Maxilom. It is evident
collected and received certain sums as dividends and partnership in the "Tren de Aguadas?" — Yes, until the that in view of the prohibition of section 383, paragraph
profits upon the plaintiffs's stock in the Tren de year 1914. 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, Maxilom could not
Aguadas in his capacity as representative and attorney- 2. From the year 1915, did Mr. Benigno Goitia send you testify in his own behalf against Tabotabo's estate, so
in-fact for both of them, which he has neither remitted any report or money on account of profits upon your as to alter the balance of the liquidation made by and
nor accounted for to the said plaintiffs shares? — He sent me nothing, nor did he answer, my between himself and the decedent.

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

- But in the case before us there has been no such On March 3 1924 Dr. Sityar operated on Carlos’ wife difference between an ordinary communication and one
liquidation between the plaintiffs and the deceased for appendicitis and other ailments. The wife was originally privileged.
Goitia. They testify, denying any such liquidation. To confined until March 18, and was required to often
apply to them the rule that "if death has sealed the lips consult with the doctor afterwards. Carlos accompanied When admissible:
of one of the parties, the law seals those of the other," his wife during consultations. On one visit Dr. Sityar - Conversation (≠ Letter): The question is radically
would be to exclude all possibility of a claim against the asked Carlos to buy medicine, which during his time different from that of the admissibility of
testamentary estate. This was the legislator's intention. away Dr. Sityar outraged his wife. The wife told Carlos testimony of a third party as to a conversation
- The plaintiffs-appellees did not testify to a fact which after they left the clinic. Nevertheless, Carlos still between a husband and wife overheard by the
took place before their representative's death, but on consulted with Dr. Sityar with his lung trouble after the witness. It is admissible because it relates to a
the contrary denied that it had taken place at all, i.e. incident without revealing any special resentment. conversation in which both spouses took part,
they denied that a liquidation had been made or any Later Dr. Sityar through letter asked Carlos to and on the further ground that where the
money remitted on account of their shares in the "Tren immediately settle the professional fees due him for defendant has the opportunity to answer a
de Aguadas" which is the ground of their claim. It was treating Carlos’ wife. Carlos went to the clinic several statement made to him by his spouse and fails to
incumbent upon the appellant to prove by proper times but wasn’t able to talk to Dr. Sityar until May 26. do so, his silence implies assent. This cannot apply
evidence that the affirmative proposition was true, The prosecution established through evidence that where the statement is contained in an unanswered
either by bringing into court the books which the Carlos stabbed Dr. Sityar twice with a fan-knife without letter.
attorney-in-fact was in duty bound to keep, or by any preliminary quarrel, and inflicted a third wound - Where a privileged communication from one
introducing copies of the drafts kept by the banks while in pursuit. Carlos escaped but surrendered spouse to another comes into the hands of a
which drew them, as was the decedents's usual himself to the Constabulary the next evening. third party, whether legally or not, without
practice according to Exhibit I, or by other similar The defense presented arguments for self-defense collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of
evidence. which failed. either of the spouses, the privilege is thereby
- The appellant admits having found a book of accounts TC convicted Carlos of murder due to evident extinguished and the communication, if
kept by the decedent showing an item of P90 for the premeditation, which only support was Exhibit L – the otherwise competent, becomes admissible.
account of Leonor Mendezona and another of P36 for wife’s letter to Carlos [dated two days before the crime] - Wigmore: If they were obtained surreptiously
the account of Valentina Izaguirre, which agrees with which was seized by the police. In the letter, the wife or otherwise without the addressee’s consent,
the statement of Ruperto Santos, who succeeded feared that Carlos contemplated resorting to physical the privilege should cease.
Benigno Goitia in the administration of said partnership, violence in dealing with Dr. Sityar.
to the effect that the deceased attorney-in-fact had Since Exhibit L is inadmissible, Carlos should be
collected the amounts due the plaintiffs as dividends on ISSUE convicted only with murder.
their shares for the months of May and June, 1926, or I: Murder or homicide? [Is the letter admissible or is it
P90 for Leonor Mendezona, and P36 for Valentina privileged communication and therefore inadmissible?] Regarding prosecution’s contention that the crime
Izaguirre, amounts which had not been remitted by the was murder because it was committed with aleviosa
deceased to the plaintiffs. HELD (because one of the wounds received by the deceased
Disposition Judgment affirmed SC: Homicide. Letter inadmissible – written by wife. showed a downward direction, indicating that the
deceased was sitting down when the wound was
Might have been admissible: inflicted), there’s no sufficient proof because the
BABAO VS PEREZ - If wife testified at the trial and subject her testimony direction of the wound would depend largely upon the
(mel) to impeachment, but she was not put on the witness- manner in which the knife was held.
stand and the letter was therefore not offered for that
purpose. DISSENT (Villamor): Carlos should have been convicted
- If Carlos, either by answer or otherwise, had of murder. An eyewitness testified that Dr. Sityar had
Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communication indicated his assent to the statements contained in the his arms lowered and was about to fall down when
letter, but he didn’t. Carlos stabbed him, which wound according to the
PEOPLE V FAUSTO CARLOS doctor-examiner could have caused Dr. Sityar’s death.
Ostrand; (Mar 17 ’25) The letter therefore is pure hearsay and its admission The case of US v. Baluyot states that “[e]ven though a
(mae m) in evidence violates the constitutional right of the deadly attack may be begun under conditions not
defendant in a criminal case to be confronted with the exhibiting the feature of aleviosa, yet if the assault is
FACTS witness for the prosecution and have the opportunity to continued and the crime is consummated with
examine them. In this respect there can be no

Prof. V. A. Avena A2010

aleviosa, such circumstance may be taken into

consideration as a qualifying factor in murder.”


See page 23.