UNCHUAN VS. LOZADA (2009) on March 11, 1994, when she was reported to be suffering from edema.
Petitioner: MARISSA R. UNCHUAN Peregrina died on April 4, 1994.
Respondent/s: ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA, ANITA LOZADA and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU RTC: For the respondents; Deed of Donation was declared NULL AND VOID CITY MR by petitioner: declared Deed of Sale VOID; Deed of Donation was Ponente: QUISUMBING, J. VALID -- TC gave credence to the medical records of Peregrina. MR by respondents: reinstated original ruling of RTC but deleted the award of damages in favor of Antonio Lozada. FACTS: CA: Affirmed RTC but restored the award of damages. Anita Lozada Slaughter and Peregrina Lozada Saribay were the registered co-owners of parcels of lots covered by TCT Nos. 53258 and 53257 in Cebu City. Contentions of the parties: They were both based in the US. They sold the lots to Antonio J.P. Lozada under a Deed of Sale. Petitioner Respondents Armed with an SPA from Anita, Peregrina went to the house of their brother, Dr. Antonio Lozada, in Long Beach, California. Her right to due process was violated when Petitioner failed to furnish the Register of Dr. Lozada agreed to advance the purchase price of US$367,000 or CA did not rule on the validity of the sale Deeds of Cebu City with a copy thereof (?) 10,000,000 for Antonio, his nephew. between the sisters Lozada and their in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 45 of The Deed of Sale was later notarized and authenticated at the Philippine Consuls nephew, Antonio. the Rules, hence the case should be Office. It was anomalous that Dr. Lozada, dismissed Dr. Lozada then forwarded the deed, along with the SPA and owners copies of the an American citizen, would pay for the lots (contrary to public titles to Antonio in the Philippines. policy vs. aliens owning Property Upon receipt of said documents, Antonio recorded the sale with the Register of in the Philippines). Hes a dummy Deeds of Cebu. Accordingly, TCT Nos. 128322 and 128323 were issued in the name of Anita. of Antonio Lozada. Pending registration of the deed, petitioner Marissa R. Unchuan caused the SC should review the conflicting factual Peregrinas unauthenticated medical annotation of an adverse claim on the lots. findings of the TC and CA on: records were merely falsified to make it claimed that Anita donated an undivided share in the lots to her under an Peregrinas medical condition on appear that she was confined in the unregistered Deed of Donation in 1987. March 11, 1994 and hospital on the day of the sale. Antonio and Anita filed a case against Marissa for Quieting of Title; Marissa, on the Dr. Lozadas financial capacity to other hand, filed a petition to declare the Deed of Sale void and to cancel TCT Nos. advance payment for Antonio 128322 and 128323 Cases were consolidated after motion. CA erred in nullifying the donation in her Respondents impugn the validity of the Respondents evidences: favor based on laches Deed of Donation in favor of Marissa. notarized and duly authenticated sworn statement, and a videotape Challenges the admissibility of the Question the credibility of Dr. Fuentes who where Anita denied having donated land in favor of Marissa. videotaped statement of Anita who was not was neither presented in court as an expert Testimony of Dr. Lozada that he agreed to advance payment for Antonio presented as a witness. witness nor professionally involved in in preparation for their plan to form a corporation, Damasa Corp., where Peregrinas medical care. he and Antonio have 40 and 60 stake Testimony of Lourdes G. Vicencio who has been renting the ground floor of Anitas house since 1983, and tendering rentals to Antonio. W/N CA erred in upholding the Decision of the RTC which declared Antonio J.P. Lozada the Marissas evidence: absolute owner of the questioned properties? her testimony that she accompanied Anita to the office of Atty. Cresencio In the assailed Decision, the CA reiterates the rule that a notarized and Tomakin for the signing of the Deed of Donation. She allegedly kept it in a authenticated deed of sale enjoys the presumption of regularity, and is admissible safety deposit box but continued to funnel monthly rentals to Peregrinas without further proof of due execution. account. RE Due process: While it is a part of the right of appellant to urge that the decision Testimony of Dr. Cecilia Fuentes on the medical records of Peregrina. That should directly meet the issues presented for resolution, mere failure by the it was physically impossible for Peregrina to have signed the Deed of Sale appellate court to specify in its decision all contentious issues raised by the appellant and the reasons for refusing to believe appellants contentions is not Here, the Deed of Donation was not properly notarized; the date as to sufficient to hold the appellate courts decision contrary to the requirements of the when the Notary Public who signed the document appears to have been law and the Constitution, so long as the decision of the CA contains the necessary superimposed as confirmed by petitioners nephew Richard Unchuan who findings of facts to warrant its conclusions. There is a legal presumption that official testified that he saw petitioners husband write 7 over 1983 to make it duty has been regularly performed, and all matters within an issue in a case were appear that the deed was notarized in 1987. laid down before the court and were passed upon by it. Additionally, Clerk of Court testified that the Deed of Donation RE Public policy: Even as Dr. Lozada advanced the money for the payment of purportedly identified in Book No. 4, Document No. 48, and Page No. 35 Antonios share, at no point were the lots registered in Dr. Lozadas name. Nor was Series of 1987 was not reported and filed with said office. it contemplated that the lots be under his control for they are actually to be Rules require a party producing a document as genuine which has been altered included as capital of Damasa Corporation. According to their agreement, Antonio and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the and Dr. Lozada are to hold 60% and 40% of the shares in said corporation, question in dispute, to account for the alteration. respectively. This is well within the Constitution. He may show that the alteration was made by another, without his Moreover, the corporation may acquire disposable lands in the concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, Philippines. or was otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did Petitioner did not present evidence to belie Antonios capacity to pay for not change the meaning or language of the instrument. the subject lots. If he fails to do that, the document shall, as in this case, not be admissible RE Factual finding of both RTC and CA: These findings are firm. There is no reason to in evidence overturn their factual findings. Here, the lands described in the Deed of Donation are covered by TCT Nos. 73645 and 73646. [Related part] These TCTs have already been cancelled on dated April 8, 1981 It is puzzling because on August 10, 1987, or six months after Anita W/N the medical records of Peregrina is admissible as evidence? NO supposedly donated her undivided share in the lots to petitioner, the Petitioner submitted as evidence a copy of Peregrinas medical records show that Unchuan Development Corporation, which was represented by she was confined at the Martin Luther Hospital from February 27, 1994 until she petitioners husband, filed suit to compel the Lozada sisters to surrender died on April 4, 1994. a Certification from Randy E. Rice, Manager for the Health Information their titles by virtue of a sale. Management of the hospital undermines the authenticity of said medical records. He denied having certified or having mailed copies of Peregrinas Is the videotape executed by Anita Lozada hearsay evidence? medical records to the Philippines. Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or in part, on the Rule: a document to be admissible in evidence, should be competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is previously authenticated, that is, its due execution or sought to be produced. genuineness should be first shown. Reasons for excluding hearsay evidence: Here, the medical records of Peregrina should be excluded as evidence. absence of cross-examination; Assuming that Peregrina was confined in the cited hospital, there was no absence of demeanor evidence; and absence of oath. showing that Peregrina was so incapacitated as to prevent her from Hornbook doctrine: an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its maker did executing the Deed of Sale. not take the witness stand. On the contrary, she even issued checks to pay for her So as it appears, the sworn statement of Anita was of this kind because she did not attorneys professional fees and her own hospital bills 2 days appear in court to affirm her averments therein. HOWEVER, an exception to the before her death. rule is if the evidence is an admission by the party. Section 26 of Rule 130: the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a W/N the Deed of Donation was valid? NO. relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. The law requires that a deed of donation on an immovable property be made in a These admissions are admissible even if they are hearsay!! public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the Here, the videotape of Anita belongs to this class. charges which the donee must satisfy. (Art. 749) Admissions against interest vs. declaration against interest Admissions against interest: made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness declaration against interest: those made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence and constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. However again, object evidence, such as the videotape in this case, must be authenticated by a special testimony showing that it was a faithful reproduction. Here, the videotape by Anita lacks this requirement so it must necessarily be excluded. But regardless, Marissa failed to prove, by preponderant evidence, any right to the lands subject of this case.