AFFIDAVIT AS PROOF OF LAND OWNERSHIP

Dear PAO,

I inherited a parcel of land from my father. The land is covered by a Torrens Title issued in my name.
Mario is an occupant of a 200 square-meter portion of the land. His possession started when my father
was still alive. I asked him to vacate the land but he claimed that his father is the absolute owner of the
land and he presented an affidavit of my grandfather (deceased) acknowledging that the 200-square
meter land was sold by my father to Mario’s father (deceased) in 2000. Is the affidavit presented by
Mario sufficient to prove his claim?

Frisco

Dear Frisco,

Based from the facts you have provided, it appears that Mario’s claim arises from an alleged contract of
sale between your father and his father when they were still alive. In this kind of transaction, it is
necessary that Mario must present the written contract (Deed of Absolute Sale) to prove that the land
he is occupying was really bought by his father.

Remember that under Article 1356 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, it is stated:

“Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they have been entered into, provided all the essential
requisites for their validity are present. However, when the law requires that a contract be in some form
in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that
requirement is absolute and indispensable. In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the following
article cannot be exercised.”
Relative thereto, Article 1358 of the said law states:

“The following must appear in a public document:

(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or
extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein
are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405. Xxx”

Thus, the sale cannot be enforced in court if the same is not in writing and subscribed by the party
charged.
In Dantis vs. Maghinang, Jr. (G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013), the Supreme Court through Honorable
former Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza stated:

“To begin with, Exhibit “3,” the affidavit of Ignacio, is hearsay evidence and, thus, cannot be accorded
any evidentiary weight. Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends on the competency and
credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to be produced. The exclusion
of hearsay evidence is anchored on three reasons: 1) absence of cross-examination; 2) absence of
demeanor evidence; and 3) absence of oath.

Jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its affiant/maker did not take
the witness stand. The sworn statement of Ignacio is of this kind. The affidavit was not identified and its
averments were not affirmed by affiant Ignacio. Accordingly, Exhibit “3” must be excluded from the
judicial proceedings being an inadmissible hearsay evidence. It cannot be deemed a declaration against
interest for the matter to be considered as an exception to the hearsay rule because the declarant was
not the seller (Emilio), but his father (Ignacio). Exhibit “4,” xxx xxx xxx xxx”

Applying the above decision in your situation, the affidavit of your grandfather which was presented by
Mario where the former acknowledged the sale of the land by his son to the father of Mario is
considered as hearsay if the same will be utilized as an evidence in a court proceeding. It is hearsay
because of the following: the affiant can no longer be cross-examined in court because he is already
dead; there is an absence of demeanor evidence; and, there is an absence of oath. Thus, the affidavit is
inadmissible as evidence to prove the claim of Mario over your property. Your Torrens Title will prevail
as proof of ownership over the said affidavit.