digest ni edge

7/28/2019 Digest Ni Edge

1/45

Tijing v. CA

354 SCRA 17

March 8, 2001

Facts:

Petitioners are husband and wife. They sought to recover custody of theirchild from Angelita Diamante who claimed the child to be her own. During thehearing of the petition, the judge noted that the child and the petitionerBienvenida Tijing had strong similarities in their faces, eyes, eyebrows andhead shapes.

Issue:

In determining the real parents of the child, can the court take into accountthe facial similarity between the child and the alleged parents?

Ruling:

The court ruled in the affirmative. Resemblance between a minor and his

alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish parentage

The trial court's conclusion should be given high respect, it having had theopportunity to observe the physical appearances of the child and petitionerconcerned.


2/45


3/45

People v. Rullepa

398 SCRA 567

March 5, 2003

Facts:

The accused was charged with raping a three and a half year old girl. Heprays that he be held liable for acts of lasciviousness instead of rape,

apparently on the basis of the victim's testimony.

The victim's age is relevant in rape cases since it may constitute an elementof the offense. Furthermore, the victim's age may constitute a qualifyingcircumstance, warranting the imposition of the death sentence.

Issue:

Is the victim's appearance in rape cases admissible as object evidence to

establish her age?

Ruling:

A person's appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object evidence, thesame being addressed to the senses of the court. Section 1, Rule 130, of the


4/45

Revised Rules on Evidence provides that when an object is relevant to thefact in issue, it may be exhibited to be examined or viewed by the court.

Experience teaches that corporal appearances are approximately an index ofthe age of their bearer, particularly for the marked extremes of old age andyouth. In every case such evidence should be accepted and weighed for what

it may be in each case worth.


5/45

People v. Jara

144 SCRA 516

September 30, 1986

Facts:

The accused was sentenced to death for robbery with homicide and forparricide. During the investigation at the scene of the crime, blood stainswere found splattered in the trousers and shirt worn by accused Jara. Hiseyeglasses were also smeared with blood. According to the NBI biologist, theblood stains found in Jara's clothing are human blood. The human bloodstains were Type B.

Issue:

What weight can be given to such evidence when the blood types of thevictims are unknown?


6/45

Ruling:

A failure to get evidence on the blood types of the two victims keeps thiscircumstantial evidence from being well-nigh conclusive. However, it is stillstrong evidence in the chain of circumstances pointing to Jara as the killer ofhis wife.


7/45

Sison v. People

250 SCRA 58

November 16, 1995

Facts:

The defendants, identified as Marcos loyalists, were charged with the murderof Salcedo. All of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and trialensued accordingly. The prosecution presented twelve witnesses, including


8/45

two eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, and the policeofficers who were at the Luneta at the time of the incident. In support of theirtestimonies, the prosecution likewise presented documentary evidenceconsisting of newspaper accounts of the incident and various photographstaken during the mauling.

Issue:

Who should identify photographs when presented in court as evidence?

Ruling:

The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in evidence,

must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as tothe circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this kind ofevidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of theoriginal, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying thescene at the time of the crime. The photographer, however, is not the onlywitness who can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of thephotograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be provedprima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by othercompetent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject toimpeachment as to its accuracy.

Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any

other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.


9/45

Philippine Movie Pictures Workers' Association v. Premiere Productions, Inc.

92 Phil 843

March 25, 1953

Facts:


10/45

Respondent Premiere Productions, Inc. filed with the Court of IndustrialRelations an urgent petition seeking authority to lay off 44 men working inthree of its departments. The ground for the lay off is the financial losseswhich respondent was allegedly suffering during the current year.

Petitioner opposed the request alleging that the claim of financial losses has

no basis in fact it being only an act of retaliation on the part of respondent forthe strike staged by the workers days before in an attempt to harass andintimidate them and weaken and detroy the union to which they belong.

On the date when the urgent petition was set for hearing, at the request ofcounsel for respondent, the presiding judge of the Court of IndustrialRelations, held an ocular inspection of the studios and filming premises ofrespondent in the course of which he interrogated about fifteen laborers whowere then present in the place. On the strength of the evidence adducedduring the ocular inspection, the judge issued an order allowing respondentto lay off the workers mentioned in its petition subject to the condition that inthe event that work is available in the future, they should be reemployed.

Issue:

May the Court of Industrial Relations authorize the layoff of workers on thebasis of an ocular inspection without receiving full evidence to determine thecause or motive of such layoff?

Ruling:

An ocular inspection of the establishment involved is proper if the court findsit necessary, but such is authorized only to help the court in clearing a doubt,reaching a conclusion, or finding the truth. It is not the main trial nor should itexclude the presentation of other evidence which the parties may deemnecessary to establish their case. It is merely an auxiliary remedy which thelaw affords the parties or the courts to reach an enlightened determination ofthe case.


11/45

United States v. Tan Teng

23 Phil 145

September 7, 1912

Facts:


12/45

Tan Teng was charged with the crime of rape. Several days after the incident,the victim who was 7 years of age, was discovered by her sister to besuffering from a venereal disease known as gonorrhea. It was at the time ofthis discovery that the victim related to her sister what had happened uponthe morning of the 15th of September. The latter at once put on foot aninvestigation to find the Chinaman. A number of Chinamen were collected

together and the victim identified the defendant as the one who hadattempted to violate her.

Upon this information the defendant was arrested and taken to the policestation and stripped of his clothing and examined. The policeman whoexamined him swore that his body bore every sign of the fact that he wassuffering from the venereal disease known as gonorrhea. The policeman tooka portion of the substance emitting from the body of the defendant andturned it over to the Bureau of Science for the purpose of having a scientificanalysis made of the same. The result of the examination showed that thedefendant was suffering from gonorrhea.

Issue:

Whether or not the result of the scientific examination made by the Bureau ofScience is admissible in evidence as proof of the fact that he was sufferingfrom gonorrhea without violating his right not to be compelled from testifyingagainst himself.

Ruling:

The evidence is admissible. The accused was not compelled to make anyadmission or answer any questions. The substance was taken from the bodyof the defendant without his objection. The examination of the substance wasmade by competent medical authority and the result showed that thedefendant was suffering from said disease. The prohibition againstcompelling a man in a criminal case to be a witness against himself is aprohibition against physical or moral compulsion to extort communicationsfrom him, and not an exclusion of his body as evidence, when it may bematerial. The prohibition contained in the Philippine Bill (sec. 5) that a personshall not be compelled to be a witness against himself, is simply a prohibition

against legal process to extract from the defendant's own lips, against hiswill, an admission of his guilt.


13/45

Villaflor v. Summers

41 Phil 62

September 8, 1920

Facts:

The Honorable Judge of the Court of First Instance ordered the defendantEmeteria Villaflor, to submit her body to the examination of one or twocompetent doctors to determine if she was pregnant or not. The accusedrefused to obey the order on the ground that such examination of her personwas a violation of the constitutional provision relating to self-incrimination.


14/45

Thereupon she was found in contempt of court and was ordered to becommitted to Bilibid Prison until she should permit the medical examinationrequired by the court.

Issue:

Whether or not the compelling of a woman to permit her body to beexamined by physicians to determine if she is pregnant, violates her rightagainst self-incrimination.

Ruling:

Constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal

case to be a witness against himself, is limited to a prohibition againstcompulsory testimonial self-incrimination. The corollary to the proposition isthat, an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. Theproviso is that torture of force shall be avoided.

Although the order of the trial judge, acceding to the request of the assistantfiscal for an examination of the person of the defendant by physicians wasphrased in absolute terms, it should, nevertheless, be understood as subjectto the limitations herein mentioned, and therefore legal.


15/45

People v. Ruiz

110 SCRA 155

December 14, 1981


16/45

Facts:

The accused was charged with murder. In his defense, the accused claimedthat the deceased and him were wrestling with the gun and it was the leftforefinger of the deceased which pulled the trigger causing it to fire. Paraffintests were conducted on both the accused and the deceased. The resultsshowed that the accused's right hand was positive for nitrates while his lefthand was negative for nitrates. The deceased's paraffin test showed thatboth his hands were negative for nitrates while his left cheek was positive fornitrates.

Issue:

Can the claim of self defense by the accused be sustained despite the resultsof the paraffin tests?

Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative. If the accused fired his unlicensed gun withhis right hand, as the presence of nitrates thereon would prove, and therebeing no nitrate found on his left hand, when he was subjected to paraffintest the day following the shooting incident also in Camp Crame, the defensetheory that the deceased pulled out a gun which accused tried to wrest from

the deceased with his left hand, and that in the course of the struggle for thepossession of the gun, it went off with the deceased's finger also pressedagainst the trigger, would be pure concoction. Under such theory, the leftleast, of the deceased that supposedly fired the gun. But paraffin testconducted on June 2, 1968 showed both hands of the deceased negative fornitrates . It was the left cheek of the deceased that was found positive for thepresence of nitrates, which shows that the gun was close to the face when itwas fired.


17/45

People v. Teehankee, Jr.


18/45

249 SCRA 54

October 6, 1995

Facts:

The accused was charged with murder for the killing of Roland Chapman andMaureen Hultman and frustrated murder for the shooting and wounding of

Jussi Leino.

On the night of July 12, 1991, Leino invited Chapman, Hultman and otherfriends for a party at his house in Forbes Park, Makati. After the party, theydecided to go to a pub to hang out and returned to Leino's house to eat. Aftera while, Hultman requested Leino to take her home and Chapman taggedalong. On their way to Hultman's house, they came across with the accused

Claudio Teehankee, Jr. The latter, without any reason shot the three whichcaused the death of Chapman and Hultman and wounding of Leino.

During the course of the investigation, the accused submitted himself to aparaffin test and the result showed that he was negative of nitrates.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused can be acquitted based on the negative result ofthe paraffin test.

Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative. Scientific experts concur in the view thatparaffin test has proved extremely unreliable in use. The only thing it candefinitely establish is the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on thehand. It cannot be established from this test alone that the source of thenitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The person may havehandled one or more of a number of substances which give the same positive

reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers,pharmaceuticals, and leguminous plants. A person who uses tobacco mayalso have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances arepresent in the products of combustion of tobacco.

Several factors may bring about the absence of gunpowder nitrates on thehands of a gunman, viz: when the assailant washes his hands after firing agun, wears gloves at the time of the shooting, or if the direction of a strongwind is against the gunman at the time of the firing. The conduct of the


19/45

paraffin test after more than 72 hours from the time of the shooting may notlead to a reliable result for, by such time, the nitrates could have alreadybeen removed by washing or perspiration.

Abalos v. CA

321 SCRA 446


20/45

December 22, 1999

Facts:

Delfin Abalos was convicted by the RTC of murder. The killing was witnessedby Veronica Bulatao who testified that Abalos shot the victim, her boyfriend,in her house and at close range. Abalos argues that there is not enoughevidence to convict him because the paraffin test conducted on him yieldednegative for powder burns on his hand, hence confirming that he never firedthe shot that killed the victim.

Issue:

Whether or not the innocence of the defendant can be proved by thenegative result of the paraffin test.

Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative. Although the paraffin test produced anegative result, such fact does not ipso facto merit Delfin's acquittal. Theabsence of powder burns in a suspect's hand is not conclusive proof that hehas not fired a gun. In fact, traces of nitrates can easily be removed by thesimple act of washing one's hand.


21/45


22/45

People v. De Guzman

224 SCRA 93

November 16, 1995

Facts:

The accused-appellant was convicted of the crime of murder by the RegionalTrial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 43, on the basis of circumstantialevidence. During the course of the trial, the prosecution presented the nitratereport on accused-appellant. The paraffin test conducted on him yielded apositive result on his left hand.

Issue:

Whether or not the positive result of the paraffin test is sufficient to prove theguilt of the accused-appellant.

Ruling:

Paraffin test is inconclusive. "Scientific experts concur in the view that theparaffin test has proved extremely unreliable in use.' The only thing that itcan definitely establish is the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites onthe hand. It cannot be established from this test alone that the source of thenitrates or nitrites was the discharge of firearm. The person may havehandled one or more of a number of substances which give the same positivereaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers,pharmaceuticals, and leguminous plants such as peas, beans, and alfalta. Aperson who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on hishands since these substances are present in the products of combustion oftobacco." The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of apossibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a person hasfired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other than


23/45

gunpowder. In the case at bar, we note, too, that accused-appellant's lefthand alone is positive of nitrates. His right hand has no trace of nitrate. Didhe use his left hand in shooting the victim? Is he left handed? The evidence ofthe prosecution does not provide the answer.


24/45

Alih v. Castro

154 SCRA 279

June 23, 1987

Facts:

On November 25, 1984, a contingent of more than two hundred Philippinemarines and elements of the home defense forces raided the compoundoccupied by the petitioners at Gov. Alvarez street, Zamboanga City, in searchof loose firearms, ammunition and other explosives.

The besieged compound surrendered the following morning, and sixteenmale occupants were arrested, later to be finger-printed, paraffin-tested andphotographed over their objection. The military also inventoried and

confiscated nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle grenades, and severalrounds of ammunition found in the premises.

On December 21, 1984, the petitioners came to this Court in a petition forprohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction and restraining order.

Their purpose was to recover the articles seized from them, to prevent thesefrom being used as evidence against them, and to challenge their finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing as violative of their right againstself-incrimination.

Issue:

Can the arrested male occupants be compelled to be finger-printed, paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection?

Ruling:


25/45

The objection to the photographing, fingerprinting and paraffin-testing of thepetitioners deserves slight comment. The prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion only. As Justice Holmes put itin Holt v. United States, "The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminalcourt to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical ormoral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his

body as evidence when it may be material.


26/45

People v. Codilla

244 SCRA 104

June 30, 1993

Facts:

Margarita Alpos, Helen Pepito and Letecia Pepito instituted four separatecomplaints with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Ormoc City, for rapeagainst accused-appellants Rolando Codilla, German Lucanas and MarceloPutulin. The police investigators induced positive identification by placing theaccused-appellants in a police line-up by themselves only and by havingthem undress. The accused-appellants questions this procedure because it it

is violative of their right against self-incrimination.

Issue:

Whether or not the right of the accused-appellants against self-incriminationwas violated when they were required to remove their garments.

Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative. The right against self-incrimination has beendefined as a protection against testimonial compulsion. It prohibits the use ofphysical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused, notan exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material. Essentially, theright is meant to "avoid and prohibit positively the repetition and recurrenceof the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a person, in a criminal orany other case, to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction."


27/45

With the passage of time, this has been extended to any evidence"communicative in nature acquired under circumstances of duress." An act,whether testimonial or passive, that would amount to disclosure ofincriminatory facts is covered by the inhibition of the Constitution. Thisshould be distinguished, parenthetically, from mechanical acts the accused ismade to execute which are not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to

ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation, likerequiring him to take part in a police line-up. In fact, it has been held that torequire a person to remove his garments would not be violative of the rightagainst self-incrimination. To require the accused to put on a pair of pantsand a hat to determine whether they fitted him for measuring orphotographing of a party, or the removal or replacement of garments orshoes, are not within the privilege against self-incrimination too.


28/45

People v. Narvasa

298 SCRA 637

November 16, 1998

Facts:

Felicisimo Narvasa was convicted by the RTC of illegal possession of firearms

in its aggravated form.

Narvasa contends that the existence of the firearms was not sufficientlyproven because the prosecution had not presented the firearms as evidence.It is necessary, he argues, that said firearms allegedly possessed by him andallegedly used in the killing of policeman Primo Camba be presented inevidence as those firearms constitute the corpus delicti of the crime withwhich they are sentenced.

Issue:

Whether or not the firearm must be presented in evidence in order toestablish its existence.

Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative. The existence of the firearm must beestablished but need not be presented as evidence.

The testimonies of several witnesses indubitably demonstrate the existenceof the firearms. Said testimonies taken together sufficiently establish theexistence of the subject firearms and the fact that Narvasa possessed andused said firearms in firing at the victims.


29/45


30/45

Vallejo v. Samartino

382 SCRA 192

May 9, 2002

Facts:

The accused was charged with rape with homicide. During the course of theinvestigation, at the instance of City Prosecutor, NBI Forensic Biologist PetByron Buan took buccal swabs and hair samples from accused-appellant, aswell as buccal swabs and hair samples from the parents of the victim,

namely, Ma. Nida Diolola and Arnulfo Diolola. The samples were submitted tothe DNA Laboratory of the NBI for examination.

Aida Viloria-Magsipoc, Forensic Chemist of the NBI, conducted DNA tests onthe specimens collected by Dr. Vertido. She testified that the vaginal swabsof the victim taken by Dr. Vertido during the autopsy contained the DNAprofiles of accused-appellant and the victim. The DNA analysis wasquestioned by accused-appellant. He argues that the prosecution failed toshow that all the samples submitted for DNA testing were not contaminated,considering that these specimens were already soaked in smirchy watersbefore they were submitted to the laboratory.

Issue:

What should the court consider in assessing the probative value of DNAevidence?


31/45

Ruling:

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the courts should consideramong others things, the following data: how the samples were collected,how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, theprocedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards

and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification ofthe analyst who conducted the tests.


32/45

Herrera v. Alba

460 SCRA 197

June 15, 2005

Facts:

On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba (respondent),represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition forcompulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner. On 7August 1998, petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim where he deniedthat he is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physicalcontact with respondents mother. Respondent filed a motion to direct thetaking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. Petitioneropposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gainedacceptability.

Issue:

Whether or not a DNA test is a valid probative tool in this jurisdiction todetermine filiation.


33/45

Ruling:

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is nototherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevantwhen it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in itsexistence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs theadmissibility of expert testimony, provides as follows:

The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,experience or training which he is shown to possess may be received inevidence. This Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility ofDNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters isallowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probabilityor improbability of the fact in issue.


34/45

Agustin v. CA

460 SCRA 315

June 15, 2005

Facts:

Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin Prollamante sued Martins allegedbiological father, petitioner Arnel L. Agustin, for support and support

pendente lite. Arnel vehemently denied having sired Martin but expressedwillingness to consider any proposal to settle the case. Fe and Martin movedfor the issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit themselves to

DNA paternity testing pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of Court. Arnelopposed said motion by invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Issue:


35/45

Whether or not DNA testing is a conclusive means of proving paternity.

Ruling:

In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorilyestablish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines geneticcodes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physicalresidue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. A positive match wouldclear up filiation or paternity.


36/45

People v. Bago

330 SCRA 115

April 6, 2000

Facts:

Appellant Reynaldo Bago, an employee of Azkcon Metal Industries wascharged with qualified theft. He contends that that the prosecution failed toprove even by circumstantial evidence that he asported the cold rolled sheets


37/45

in question. He asserts that these materials were delivered to Azkcon asevidenced by the receiptduly stamped by the guard on duty.

Issue:

Is a receipt duly stamped by the guard on duty the best evidence to proveactual delivery and should therefore be given more credence than theguard's testimony?

Ruling:

The best evidence rule cannot be invoked unless the content of a writing isthe subject of judicial inquiry, in which case, the best evidence is the original

writing itself. The rule pertains to the admissibility of secondary evidence toprove the contents of a document. In the case at bar, no secondary evidenceis offered to prove the content of a document. What is being questioned byappellant is the weight given by the trial court to the testimony of Mananganover the receipt which on its face shows that the materials in question weredelivered to Azkcons premises. Clearly, the best evidence rule finds noapplication on this issue.


38/45

Arceo v. People

495 SCRA 204


39/45

July 17, 2006

Facts:

On March 14, 1991, petitioner, obtained a loan from private complainantJosefino Cenizal in the amount of P100,000.00. Several weeks thereafter,petitioner obtained an additional loan of P50,000.00 from Cenizal. Petitionerthen issued in favor of Cenizal, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check No.163255, postdated August 4, 1991, for P150,000.00, at Cenizals house.When August 4, 1991 came, Cenizal did not deposit the check immediatelybecause petitioner promised that he would replace the check with cash. Suchpromise was made verbally seven times. When his patience ran out, Cenizalbrought the check to the bank for encashment. The head office of the Bank ofthe Philippine Islands through a letter dated December 5, 1991, informedCenizal that the check bounced because of insufficient funds.

Cenizal executed before the office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City hisaffidavit and submitted documents in support of his complaint for estafa andviolation of BP 22 against petitioner. The check in question and the return slipwere however lost by Cenizal as a result of a fire that occurred near hisresidence. Cenizal executed an Affidavit of Loss regarding the loss of thecheck in question and the return slip.

Issue:

Is the presentation of the check in evidence necessary for conviction underBP 22?

Ruling:

Petitioners insistence on the presentation of the check in evidence as acondition sine qua non for conviction under BP 22 is wrong. Petitioneranchors his argument on Rule 130, Section 3, of the Rules of Court, otherwiseknown as the best evidence rule. However, the rule applies only where the

content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is theexecution or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding itsexecution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence isadmissible.

The gravamen of the offense is the act of drawing and issuing a worthlesscheck. Hence, the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution ofthe check, not its content.


40/45

Ebreo v. Ebreo

483 SCRA 583


41/45

February 28, 2006

Facts:

Felipe Ebreo died intestate leaving behind as heirs his five children. He left tohis children an untitled parcel of land situated in Barangay Sampaga,Batangas City. Pursuant to the subdivision made by their father Felipe, theland was divided into six lots identified as Lots A, B, C, D, E and F.

The five heirs executed and signed a document where they extrajudiciallypartitioned the property except the portion known as Lot No. 9046-F. Theyagreed that said portion shall remain under the co-ownership of all the heirs.However, plaintiffs were surprised to discover that such portion of the landwas declared for taxation purposes in the name of defendant Antonio Ebreo.Based on the plaintiffs' recitals, they alleged that they never sold, ceded,

conveyed or transferred their rights, share and co-ownership over Lot 9046-F.

Answering the complaint, the defendants countered that after the executionof the document of partition, Lot 9046-F was sold by the heirs to SantiagoPuyo. By virtue of this sale, the corresponding Real Property Tax Declarationwas transferred in the name of Santiago Puyo as owner. However, the deedof sale evidencing this transaction was never presented.

Issue:

Does an annotation in a tax declaration of an alleged Deed of Sale sufficientlyprove conveyance of title to a property?

Ruling:

The fact that tax declarations for Lot 9046-F were issued in the name ofdefendant Antonio Ebreo and that he paid taxes for the land provides noevidentiary value that he was the owner thereof. Tax declarations are notsufficient evidence to prove possession in the concept of owners.

Considering that the annotation of the disputed Deed of Sale in a taxdeclaration is not sufficient proof of the transfer of property and inasmuch asthe subject of inquiry is the Deed of Sale, it was incumbent on the petitionersto adduce in evidence the original or a copy of the deed. In the absence ofthe said document, the exhortations of petitioners regarding the existence ofsaid deed of sale must fail.


42/45

Social Security System v. Aguas

483 SCRA 383

February 27, 2006


43/45

Facts:

Pablo Aguas, a member of the Social Security Systemand a pensioner, diedon December 8, 1996. His surviving spouse, Rosanna, filed a claim with theSSS for death benefits. She indicated in her claim that Pablo was likewisesurvived by his minor child Jeylnn.

Pablo's sister contested Rosanna's claim for death benefits. She alleged thatRosanna abandoned the family abode approximately more than six yearsbefore, and lived with another man on whom she has been dependent forsupport. She further averred that Pablo had no legal children with Rosanna,but the latter had several children with a certain Romeo dela Pena. Theseallegations were confirmed by the testimonies of Pablo's cousin and neighborduring the investigation conducted by the Social Security Officer.

On the basis of the report and an alleged confirmation by a doctor that Pablowas infertile, the SSS denied Rosanna's request to resume the payment of

their pensions.

The claimants, joined by Janet Aguas who also claimed to be the child of thedeceased, filed a claim/petition for the Restoration/Paymentof Pensions withSocial Security Commission. They presented photocopies of Pablo andRosanna's marriage certificate, Janet and Jeylnn's certificate of live birth andPablo's death certificate. Jeylnn's birth certificate was authenticated by theCivil Registry while Janet's was not.

Issue:

Whether or not a mere photocopy of a birth certificate which was not verifiedin any way by the civil register be given probative value.

Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative. Such birth certificate stands as a merephotocopy, without probative weight. Unlike Jeylnn, there was noconfirmation by the civil register of the fact of Janet's birth on the date statedin the certificate.


44/45

Abella v. CA

257 SCRA 482


45/45

June 20, 1996

Facts:

The lessor issued a receipt which reads:

Received from Mr. Conrado O. Colarina the sum of forty thousand pesos (40,000) as advanced deposit to answer for any rental which Mr. Conrado O.Colarina may fail to pay during the term of the lease as per contract, dated26th day of May, 1987 notarized before notary public Oscar Villamora, Doc.No. 398; page no. 80; book no. 9, series of 1987, this 26 th day of May, 1987,at Naga City.

In a subsequent litigation involving the lease contract, however, the lessorpresented witnesses to show that the P40, 000 is merely goodwill money.

Issue:

Whether or not oral testimony can prevail over documentary evidence.

Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative. The receipt expresses truly the parties' intenton the purpose of said payment as against the oral testimony of thepetitioner that said amount is merely goodwill money. Without any doubt,oral testimony as to a certain fact, depending as it does exclusively onhuman memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence.

digest ni edge

Documents