evidence cases for feb. 05
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
1/118
February 5, 2014
Marital disqualification,
Rule 130, section 22 (differentiate from relative incompetencies
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-10396 July 29, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.
TERESA CONCEPCION, defendant-appellant.
M. Jesus Cuenco for appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.
JOHNSON, J.:
The defendant was charged with a violation of the Opium Law. The
complaint alleged that she had in her possession and under her
control a uantit! of opium. "he was arrested, arraigned, pleaded not
guilt!, tried, found guilt!, and sentenced to pa! a fine of #$%% and
costs.
&rom that sentence she appealed to this court. 'n this court she
alleges that the lower court committed several errors, (oth of law and
of fact. )pon the uestion of fact, she alleges that the lower court
committed an error in deciding that the evidence adduced during the
trial of the cause was sufficient to show that she was guilt! of the
crime charged (e!ond a reasona(le dou(t.
)pon that uestion the Attorne!-*eneral, in a carefull! prepared (rief
in which he anal!+es the proof, reaches the conclusion that the facts
are insufficient to show that she is guilt! of the crime charged.
't appears from the evidence that on the night of the nd of
ecem(er, /$, several policemen went to the house of the
defendant, where she was living with her hus(and, &eli0 1ica(lanca.
)pon arriving there, the! o(tained permission to enter and
immediatel! proceeded to ma2e a search of the premises for opium.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
2/118
3hile there is some dispute concerning the fact, we (elieve the proof
shows that the defendant, during the time the policemen were
searching the house, went to a (ed located in the house, after (eing
so ordered (! her hus(and, and too2 from (eneath a pillow a small
can of opium, said to contain a(out 45 grams of opium, and
attempted to throw it awa!. At that moment the policemen too2
possession of the can. There is some conflict in the proof as to 6ust
what too2 place at that moment. That the policemen inuired to whom
the opium (elonged is not denied. The conflict arises in the answer
which was given to that uestion. The defendant in the present case,
according to some of the witnesses, declared that it (elonged to her.
7er hus(and, &eli0 1ica(lanca, according to some witnesses,declared that he was the owner of the house and was responsi(le for
ever!thing that was found within it. The policemen, at that moment,
evidentl! (elieved that the opium (elonged to the hus(and, &eli0
1ica(lanca, for the reason that the! arrested him and too2 him to the
pue(lo, and later filed a complaint against him for a violation of the
Opium Law .7e was later (rought to trial and was acuitted.
No complaint was presented against the present defendant until after
a period of more than ten months had elapsed. The policemen who
were present at the time the opium was found certainl! 2new no more
a(out the facts at the time the complaint was presented against the
present defendant than the! did on the night when the opium was
found and when the! arrested her hus(and. The fact that the
defendant too2 the opium from under the pillow on the (ed, at thereuest of her hus(and, seems to us to (e entirel! supported (! the
proof. 7er hus(and was a confirmed user of opium. 7e admitted that
he was in the ha(it of smo2ing opium. That the defendant was
temporaril! in possession of the opium is not denied, even (! her.
That her possession was such a possession as is prohi(ited (! the
law, she strongl! denies. The mere fact that she had in her
possession the opium for (ut a moment and too2 possession of it
under her hus(and8s order, is not, in our opinion, such a possession
of opium as is intended to (e condemned (! the law. "he certainl!
did not intend, even remotel!, to have in her possession opium. "he
did e0actl! what an! other faithful wife would have done under similar
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
3/118
circumstances. There is no proof that she was a user of opium in an!
form. There is no proof that she 2new that the can contained opium
and conseuentl! there is no proof of the animus possidendi. 'n the
a(sence of such proof there can (e no conviction under the complaint
for the illegal possession of opium.
The appellant ma2es another assignment of error which presents an
important uestion of law. "he alleges that the lower court committed
an error in permitting the testimon! of her hus(and to (e presented
against her over her o(6ection. "he alleges that the admission of that
testimon! was in violation of paragraph $ of section $9$ of the Code
of Civil #rocedure in Civil Actions. "aid paragraph provides: ;A
hus(and can not (e e0amined for or against her hus(and without his
consent< nor a wife for or against her hus(and without her consent<
nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, (e, without the
consent of the other, e0amined as to an! communication made (!
one to the other during the marriage< (ut this e0ception does not
appl! to a civil action or proceeding (! one against the other, or to a
criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed (! one againstthe other.;
't will (e noted that said action prohi(its a hus(and from giving
testimon! against his wife without her consent, e0cept in a civil action
(etween hus(and and wife, and in a criminal action when the crime
was committed (! one against the other. The present is not a civil
action (etween hus(and and wife, neither it is a criminal action wherethe crime was committed (! one against the other. 't would seem to
clear, therefore, that the testimon! of the hus(and is not admissi(le if
the wife o(6ected. The testimon! of the hus(and should not have
(een admitted.
There still another o(6ection to the admissi(ilit! of the testimon! of the
hus(and. 7is testimon! was not given in the present case. 't was acop! of his declaration given in another case, in which he was the
defendant and in which he was charged with the illegal possession of
the opium in uestion. 't will (e remem(ered that at the time the
opium was found in the house of the defendant, the hus(and of the
present defendant was arrested< that later a complaint was presented
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
4/118
against him. uring the trial he testified in his own (ehalf. 't was the
testimon! given in that case which was presented as proof in the
present case. 7e was not called as a witness. 7is testimon! is not
onl! not admissi(le under the provisions a(ove uoted of section
$9$, (ut it is not admissi(le under the #hilippine Bill, which provides:
;'n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall en6o! the right to (e
heard (! himself and counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speed! and pu(lic trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsor! process to compel
the attendance of witnesses in his (ehalf.;
The defendant was not given an opportunit! ;to meet the witness
face to face.; The acceptance of the testimon! of her hus(and, given
in another case, was in a(solute violation of her rights and in direct
contravention of the law .The presentation and acceptance of the
testimon! of the hus(and violated two well-recogni+ed rules of law =
first, paragraph $ of section $9$ of Act No. /%, and >second?,
paragraph of section @ of the Act of Congress of ul! , /%.
At the common law the rule was that hus(and and wife could not
testif! for or against each other in an! criminal proceedings, e0cept in
the prosecution of one for criminal in6ur! to the other. The common-
law rule has (een adopted in practicall! all of the "tates of the )nited
"tates. The rule is (ased upon considerations of pu(lic polic!
growing out of the marital relation. To allow one to testif! for or
against the other would (e to su(6ect him or her to great temptation tocommit per6ur! and to endanger the harmon! and confidence of the
marital relation. The cases supporting the rule are innumera(le.
&or the foregoing reasons, the sentence of conviction must (e
revo2ed, and it is here(! ordered and decreed that the complaint (e
dismissed and the defendant discharged from the custod! of the law,
with costs de oficio. "o ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Carson and Trent, JJ., concur in the result.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
5/118
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2563 Ju!" 2#, 196$
JOSE %ANUEL LE&A%A '!( PA)UITA LE&A%A, petitioners,
vs.HON. JESUS RODRIGUE&, Ju(*" o+ " Cou o+ / I!'!"o+ Ilolo,
JOSE DINEROS, ! ''y ' R""4" o+ " LA PA& ICEPLANT '!( COLD STORAGE CO., INC., '!( THE HON. COURT
O/ APPEALS, respondents.
Efrain . Trenas and !er"io #. Ma$unay for petitioners.%icardo J. Gerochi for respondents.
CASTRO, J.:
The issue tendered for resolution in this case is whether a wife, who
is a co-defendant of her hus(and in an action, ma! (e e0amined as a
hostile witness (! the adverse part! under section of 1ule $ of
the 1ules of Court, without infringing on her marital privilege not to
testif! against her hus(and under section % (D of 1ule $%. The trial
court, presided (! the respondent udge esus 1odrigue+, ruled in
the affirmative and reuired the wife to appear and testif!. The
petitioners sued for certiorari (ut the Court of Appeals dismissed their
petition and denied their motion for reconsideration. 7ence this
appeal.$
On ul! 9, /% ose ". ineros, acting as receiver of the La #a+
'ce #lant Cold "torage Co. in 'loilo, together with C.N. 7odges and
1icardo *urrea, filed an action in the Court of &irst 'nstance of 'loilo
for the annulment of a 6udgment rendered against the La #a+ 'ce
#lant (! the Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila in civil case $/94.
Named as defendants were Farciano C. 1oue, in whose favor
6udgment was rendered, and the spouses ose Fanuel and #auita
Le+ama. The complaint alleged that, (ecause of mismanagement (!
the Le+amas, the La #a+ 'ce #lant was placed under the receivership
of ineros< that during the pendenc! of the receivership, Farciano C.
1oue (rought an action against the La #a+ 'ce #lant in the Court of
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
6/118
&irst 'nstance of Fanila for the collection of #@%,%%%, which sum he
had supposedl! lent to it< that summons was served not on the
receiver (ut on the spouses ose Fanuel and #auita Le+ama< and
that, through the collusion of the Le+amas, 1oue was a(le to o(tain
6udgment (! default against the compan!. 't was claimed that,
(ecause the summons was served on ose Fanuel Le+ama instead
of on the receiver, the Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila acuired no
6urisdiction over the La #a+ 'ce #lant and that, therefore, the decision
of that court was void. &'vvphi&.n(t
'n their answer, the defendant spouses the herein petitionersD, while
admitting that the compan! was placed under receivership,
maintained that ose Fanuel Le+ama nevertheless remained
president of the La #a+ 'ce #lant and that as such he had authorit! to
receive in (ehalf of the compan! the court summons in civil case
$/94. The! denied entering into collusion with 1oue and averred
that the! did not contest 1oue8s claim (ecause the! 2new it to (e a
legitimate o(ligation which the La #a+ 'ce #lant had incurred
pursuant to a resolution of its (oard of directors.
'ssues having (een 6oined, the case was thereupon heard. At the
hearing ineros as2ed the court to issue asu$poena to #auita
Le+ama to testif! as ;a witness summoned (! the plaintiffs in
accordance with the 1ules of Court.; The reuest was granted over
the o(6ection of the petitioners who invo2ed the following provision of
the 1ules of Court:
A hus(and cannot (e e0amined for or against his wife without
her consent< nor a wife for or against her hus(and without his
consent, e0cept in a civil case (! one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed (! one against the other, or
in a criminal case for a crime committed (! one against the
other.G
This provision deals with two different matters which rest on different
grounds of polic!: the disualification of hus(and and wife to testif! in
each other8s (ehalf, as well as their privile"e not to testif! against
each other.@ The fundamental theor! of the common law is said to (e
that relationship of the spouses, not their pecuniar! interest, is the
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
7/118
(asis of the disualification. 'ndeed section % of 1ule $% is entitled
;isualification (! reason of ... relationship.;
On the other hand, while a shelter of emotional reasons has (een
offered4 for the privilege, the ;true e0planation >which? is after all the
simplest;9 and which constitutes ;the real and sole strength of theopposition to a(olishing the privilege,; is the natural repugnance in
ever! fair-minded person to compelling a wife or hus(and to (e the
means of the other8s condemnation and to su(6ecting the culprit to the
humiliation of (eing condemned (! the words of his intimate life
partner./
7ere the reuest for su$poena indicated that #auita Le+ama was todo no more than testif! as an adverse part! in the case and, indeed,
in the light of the allegations (oth in the complaint and in the answer,
the reuest was apparentl! one that could reasona(l! (e e0pected to
(e made. Thus, the complaint charged
$. = That in o(taining the 6udgment (! default in Civil Case No.
$/94 of the Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila against the La #a+'ce #lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc. defendants, in gross and
evident (ad faith, and in fraudulent conspirac!, made it appear
that the La #a+ 'ce #lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc. had o(tained
a loan of #@%,%%%.%% from defendant Farciano C. 1oue thru
defendant ose Fanuel Le+ama allegedl! upon an authorit!
vested upon defendant ose Fanuel Le+ama (! the alleged
Board of irectors of the La #a+ 'ce #lant Cold "torage Co.,
'nc. allegedl! evidenced (! the minutes of the meetings of the
Board of irectors of the said corporation signed (! defendant
ose Fanuel Le+ama and attested to (! Ben6amin Luis Bor6a
and #auita B. Le+ama and that defendants spouses ose
Fanuel Le+ama and #auita B. Le+ama had manipulated the
(oo2s of the corporation (! ma2ing it appear that such fictitiousloan was then in e0istence.
On the other hand, the answer claimed
$. That the herein defendants specificall! den! all the
allegations contained in paragraph $ of the complaint< the truth
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
8/118
is, that the herein defendants have not conspired and acted in
(ad faith with the plaintiff >Farciano C. 1oue? in Civil Case No.
$/94 of the Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila for the rendition of
the said 6udgment referred to therein< for the truth is, that the
herein defendants, in their capacities as #resident-Fanager and
"ecretar! of the La #a+ 'ce #lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc.,
(elieving as the! (elieve that the o(ligation sought to (e
enforced (! said civil action (eing legitimate and the allegations
of the complaint in said Civil Case No. $/94 of the Court of &irst
'nstance of Fanila are true, the! did not deem it wise to contest
the same< that the o(ligation of #@%,%%%.%% of the La #a+ 'ce
#lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc., which the defendant Farciano C.1oue sought to (e enforced in Civil Case No. $/94 of the
Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila was legitimatel! contracted in
accordance with law< that said o(ligation was dul! entered in the
(oo2s of the corporation and that the said loan is not fictitious<
that the amount reali+ed therefrom was spent for the (enefit of
the said corporation.
Thus, while the petitioners denied the charge that the loan was
fictitious, the! did not den! the allegation that it was #auita Le+ama
who, as secretar! of the compan!, signed the minutes of the meeting
at which ose Fanuel Le+ama was allegedl! authori+ed to negotiate
the loan and that it was she who, li2ewise as secretar!, made the
entr! in the (oo2s of the corporation.
't was o(viousl! to test the truth of the assertion that the loan
transaction was a(ove (oard that ineros, the compan! receiver,
wanted #auita Le+ama on the witness stand, not as a spouse
witness ;for or against her hus(and,; (ut rather as an adverse part!
in the case.
't is postulated that a part! can ma2e, as it were, such fora!s into hisopponent8s position on the strength of section of 1ule $ which
provides:
#irect e)amination of unwillin" or hostile witnesses. = A part!
ma! interrogate an! unwilling or hostile witness (! leading
uestions. A part! ma! call an adverse part! or an officer,
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
9/118
director, or managing agent of a pu(lic or private corporation or
of a partnership or association which is an adverse part!, and
interrogate him (! leading uestions and contradict and impeach
him in all respects as if he had (een called (! the adverse part!
and the witness thus called ma! (e contradicted and impeached
(! or on (ehalf of the adverse part! also, and ma! (e cross-
e0amined (! the adverse part! onl! upon the su(6ect-matter of
his e0amination in chief.
The (asic issue ma! therefore (e restated thus: 'n this case where
the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging fraud against the
spouses, can the wife (e compelled to testif! as an adverse part!
witness concerning her participation in the alleged fraud without
violating section % (D of 1ule $%H
't is argued that the wife ma! (e so compelled (ut her testimon!
would (e receiva(le onl! against her.% 't is even suggested that
;each ma! testif! in his or her own (ehalf, although the testimon!
ma! inure to the (enefit of the other spouse, or against his or her own
interest, although the testimon! ma! also militate against the other
spouse.; )pon the other hand, it is insisted that compelling #auita
Le+ama to testif! will transgress section %(D of 1ule $%, especiall!
if her testimon! will support the plaintiff8s charge.
The complaint charges ;fraudulent conspirac!; on the part of the
spouses and one Farciano C. 1oue to ma2e it appear that the La
#a+ 'ce #lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc. was inde(ted to 1oue. The
wife, #auita Le+ama, is called upon to testif! as an adverse part!
witness on the (asis of her following participation in the alleged
fraudulent scheme: ;that it was #auita Le+ama who as "ecretar! of
the compan! signed the minutes of the meeting during which Fanuel
Le+ama was allegedl! authori+ed to negotiate the loan and that it was
she who, li2ewise as "ecretar!, made the entr! in the (oo2s of thecorporation.;
Evidentl!, #auita Le+ama will (e as2ed to testif! on what actuall!
transpired during the meeting and will (e as2ed uestions on the
matter of the veracit! or falsit! of the entr! in the (oo2s of the
corporation. 3hether her testimon! will turn out to (e adverse or
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
10/118
(eneficial to her own interest, the inevita(le result would (e to pit her
against her hus(and. The interests of hus(and and wife in this case
are necessaril! interrelated. Testimon! adverse to the wife8s own
interests would tend to show the e0istence of collusive fraud (etween
the spouses and would then wor2 havoc upon their common defense
that the loan was not fictitious. There is the possi(ilit!, too, that the
wife, in order to soften her own guilt, if guilt! she is, ma! unwittingl!
testif! in a manner entirel! disparaging to the interests of the
hus(and.
Because of the une0pensive wording of the rule which provides
merel! that the wife cannot (e e0amined ;for or against her hus(and
without his consent,; it is further argued that ;when hus(and and wife
are parties to an action, there is no reason wh! either ma! not (e
e0amined as a witness for or against himself or herself alone,; and
his or her testimon! could operate onl! against himself or herself.
Even if such view were generall! accepta(le as an e0ception to the
rule, or even as a separate doctrine, it would (e inapplica(le in this
case where the main charge is collusive fraud (etween the spouses
and a third person, and the evident purpose of e0amination of the
wife is to prove that charge.
'ndeed, in those 6urisdictions which allow one spouse to (e su(6ected
to e0amination (! the adverse part! as a hostile witness when (oth
spouses are parties to the action, either the interests of the spouses
are separate or separa(le, or the spouse offered as a witness is
merel! a formal or nominal part!.$
The final point urged upon us is that to prevent one spouse from
testif!ing would encourage alliance of hus(and and wife as an
instrument of fraud< for then what (etter wa! would there (e to
prevent discover! than to ma2e a co-conspirator in fraud immune to
the most convenient mode of discover! availa(le to the opposite
part!H This argument overloo2s the fact that section of 1ule $ is
a mere concession, for the sa2e of discover!, from the rule which
precludes the hus(and or the wife from (ecoming the means of the
other8s condemnation. The said rule of discover! should therefore not
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
11/118
(e e0panded in meaning or scope as to allow e0amination of one8s
spouse in a situation where this natural repugnance o(tains.
't ma! not (e amiss to state in passing that the respondent ineros
has not demonstrated that there is no evidence availa(le to him other
than the Le+amas8 testimon! to prove the charge recited in thecomplaint.&*wph+&.ñt
ACCO1'N*LI, the resolutions appealed from are versed, and this
case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for further
proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.
Concepcion, C.J., %eyes, J..., #ion, !anche, An"eles, and/ernando, JJ., concur.
Ma0alintal and 1aldivar, JJ., too0 no part.
/oo!o"
1esolution @, CA-*.1. $49-1, Nov. G, /@.
1esolution , CA-*.1. $49-1, an. , /.$3hile the appeal was pending in this Court, the receivership
was dissolved and, conseuentl!, ose ". ineros, who was
originall! made a part! respondent, was dropped and the La #a+
'ce #lant Cold "torage Co. su(stituted in his stead. 1esolution,
Oct. , /.
G1ule $%, sec. %(D.
@"ee 9 . 3igmore, Evidence, sec. 4 at , sec. 9 at
FcNaughton rev. /D >hereafter cited as 9 3igmore?.
. 3igmore, Evidence, sec. %$ at 4$4 $d ed. /G%D
>hereafter cited as 3igmore?.
4 &or instance, in 2nited !tates v. Concepcion, $ #hil. 9
/@D the (asis of the rule is said to (e the ;considerations of
pu(lic polic! growing out of the marital relation.; "aid the Court:
;To allow one to testif! for or against the other would (e to
su(6ect him or her to great temptation to commit per6ur! and to
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
12/118
endanger the harmon! and confidence of the marital relation.; At
94. On the other hand, in 3eople v. /rancisco, 49 #hil. /G
/G4D, the Court gave as reasons for the privilege the following:
;&irst, identit! of interests< second, the conseuent danger of
per6ur!< third, the polic! of the law which deems it necessar! to
guard the securit! and confidences of private life even at the ris2
of an occasional failure of 6ustice, and which re6ects such
evidence (ecause its admission would lead to domestic disunion
and unhappiness< and fourth, (ecause, where a want of
domestic tranuilit! e0ists, there is danger of punishing one
spouse through the hostile testimon! of the other.; At 4%$.
99 3igmore, sec. 4 at .
/4d ., sec. 9 at 4.
% "ee 9 3igmore 4.
/4 C..". G44.
"ee Fen+el vs. Tu((s, et al., @$ N3 @$, @ cited in @9 Am.
ur. /.
$ /4 C..". G44.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
13/118
"ECON 'J'"'ON
G.R. No. L-6306 /"u'y 2#, 19#9
PEOPLE O/ THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.HON. %ARIANO C. CASTAEDA, JR., ' Ju(*" o+ " Cou o+ / I!'!" o+ P'7'!*', 8'! III, '!( 8ENJA%IN /.
%ANALOTO, respondents.
/iscal %e"idor 5 A"lipay and !pecial Counsel 6icente Macalino for
petitioner.
Moises !evilla 7campo for private petitioner.
Cicero J. 3unalan for respondent.
SANTOS, J.:
On the (asis of the complaint 1 of his wife, Jictoria F. Fanaloto, herein private respondentBen6amin Fanaloto was charged (efore the Court of &irst 'nstance of #ampanga, presided (! respondent udge, 7on.
Fariano C. Castaneda r., with the crime of &alsification of #u(lic ocument committed, according to the 'nformation, as
follows:
That on or a(out the /th da! of Fa!, /4@, in the
Funicipalit! of "an &ernando, province of #ampanga,
#hilippines, and within the 6urisdiction of this 7onora(le
Court, the a(ove-named a BENAF'N &. FANALOTO, withdeli(erate intent to commit falsification, did then and there
willfull!, unlawfull! and feloniousl! counterfeit, imitate and
forge the signature of his spouse Jictoria F. Fanaloto in a
deed of sale e0ecuted (! said accused wherein he sold a
house and lot (elonging to the con6ugal partnership of said
spouse in favor of #onciano Lacsamana under oc. No.
/@4, #age No. 4, Boo2 No. LJ'', "eries of /4@, notari+ed(! Notar! #u(lic A(raham #a. *orospe, there(! ma2ing it
appear that his spouse Jictoria F. Fanaloto gave her
marital consent to said sale when in fact and in truth she did
not. 2
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
14/118
At the trial, the prosecution called the complaint-wife to the witness
stand (ut the defense moved to disualif! her as a witness, invo2ing
"ec. %, 1ule $% of the 1evised 1ules Of Court which provides:
"EC. %. #is8ualification $y reason of interest or
relationship 9 The following persons cannot testif! as tomatters in which the! are interested, directl! or indirectl! as
herein enumerated.
000 000 000
(D A hus(and can not (e e0amined for or at his wife without
her consent< nor a wife for or against her hus(and withouthis consent, e0cept in a civil case (! one against the other
or in a criminal case for a crime committed (! one against
the other.
The prosecution opposed said motion to disualit! on the ground that
the case falls under the e0ception to the rule, contending that it is a
;criminal case for a crime committed (! one against the other.;Notwithstanding such opposition, respondent udge granted the
motion, disualif!ing Jictoria Fanaloto from testif!ing for or against
her hus(and, in an order dated Farch $, /44. A motion for
reconsideration petition was filed (ut was denied (! respondent
udge in an order dated Fa! /, /44.
7ence, this petition for certiorari file (! the office of the #rovincial
&iscal, on (ehalf of the #eople of the #hilippines, see2ing set aside
the aforesaid order of the respondent udge and pra!ing that a
preliminar! in6unction or a ternporar! restraining order (e issued (!
this Court en6oining said 6udge from further proceeding with the trial of
aforesaid Criminal Case No. %.
On une %, /44, this Court resolved = aD to issue a temporar!
restraining order, and (D to reuire the "olicitor *eneral to appear as
counsel for the petitioner. 3 The Office of the "olicitor *eneral filed its Notice of Appearance on une4, /44,
and its Femorandum in support of the #etition on August $%, /44.
5 The respondents filed their Femorandum
on "eptem(er @, /44.63hereupon, the case was considered su(mitted for decision.
#
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
15/118
&rom the foregoing factual and procedural antecedents emerges the
sole issues determinative of the instant petition, to wit: 3hether or not
the criminal case for &alsification of #u(lic ocument filed against
herein private respondent Ben6amin &. Fanaloto = who allegedl!
forged the signature of his wife, Jictoria F. Fanaloto, in a deed of
sale, there(! ma2ing it appear that the latter gave her marital consent
to the sale of a house and lot (elonging to their con6ugal partnership
when in fact and in truth she did not = ma! (e considered as a
criminal case for a crime committed (! a hus(and against his wife
and, therefore, an e0ception to the rule on marital disualification.
3e sustain petitioner8s stand that the case is an e0ception to the
marital disualification rule, as a criminal case for a crime committed
(! the accused-hus(and against the witness-wife.
. The act complained of as constituting the crime of &alsification of
#u(lic ocument is the forger! (! the accused of his wife8s signature
in a deed of sale, there(! ma2ing it appear therein that said wife
consented to the sale of a house and lot (elonging to their con6ugal
partnership when in fact and in truth she did not. 't must (e noted that
had the sale of the said house and lot, and the signing of the wife8s
name (! her hus(and in the deed of sale, (een made with the
consent of the wife, no crime could have (een charged against said
hus(and Clearl!, therefore, it is the hus(and8s (reach of his wife8s
confidence which gave rise to the offense charged. And it is this same
(reach of trust which prompted the wife to ma2e the necessar!complaint with the Office of the #rovincial &iscal which, accordingl!,
filed the aforesaid criminal case with the Court of &irst 'nstance of
#ampanga. To rule, therefore, that such criminal case is not one for a
crime committed (! one spouse against the other is to advance a
conclusion which completel! disregards the factual antecedents of
the instant case.
. This is not the first time that the issue of whether a specific offense
ma! (e classified as a crime committed (! one spouse against the
other is presented to this Court for resolution. Thus, in the case
of 7rdoño v. #a8ui"an, $this Court, through Fr. ustice 1amon C. Auino, set up the criterion to (efollowed in resolving the issue, stating that:
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
16/118
3e thin2 that the correct rule, which ma! (e adopted in this
6urisdiction, is that laid down in Car"ill v. !tate, $@ AL1, $$, %, #ac
G, O2L $G, wherein the court said:
The rule that the in6ur! must amount to a ph!sical wrong
upon the is too narrow< and the rule that an! offenseremotel! or indirectl! affecting domestic within the e0ception
is too (road. The (etter rule is that, 37EN AN O&&EN"E
'1ECTLI ATTACK", O1 '1ECTLI AN J'TALLI
'F#A'1", T7E CON)*AL 1ELAT'ON, 'T COFE" 3'T7'N
T7E ECE#T'ON to the statute that one shall not (e a
witness against the other e0cept in a criminal prosecution
for a crime committed (!D one against the other.
Appl!ing the foregoing criterion in said case of 7rdoño v.
#a8ui"an this Court held that the rape committed (! the hus(and of
the witness-wife against their daughter was a crime committed (! the
hus(and against his wife. Although the victim of the crime committed
(! the accused in that can was not his wife (ut their daughter, this
Court, nevertheless, applied the e0ception for the reason that said
criminal act ;#ositivel! underminedD the connu(ial relationship. 9
3ith more reason must the e0ception appl! to the instant case where
the victim of the crime and the person who stands to (e directl!
pre6udiced (! the falsification is not a third person (ut the wife herself.
And it is undenia(le that the act comp of had the effect of directl! and
vitall! impairing the con6ugal relation. This is apparent not onl! in the
act Of the wife in personall! lodging her complaint with the Office of
the #rovincial &iscal, (ut also in her insistent efforts 10 in connection with theinstant petition, which see2s to set aside the order disualified her from testif!ing against her hus(and. Ta2en collectivel!,
the actuations of the witness-wife underacore the fact that the martial and domestic relations (etween her and the
accused-hus(and have (ecome so strained that there is no more harmon! to (e preserved said nor peace and tranuilit!
which ma! (e distur(ed. 'n such a case, as 3e have occasion to point out in previous decisions, ;identit! of interests
disappears and the conseuent danger of per6ur! (ased on that 'dentit! is none0istent. Li2ewise, in such a situation, the
securit! and confidence of private life which the law aims at protecting will (e nothing (ut 'deals which, through their
a(sence, merel! leave a void in the unhapp! home. 11 Thus, there is no reason to appl! the martial disualification rule.
$. &inall!, overriding considerations of pu(lic polic! demand that the
wife should not (e disualified from testif!ing against her hus(and in
the instant case. &or, as aptl! o(served (! the "olicitor *eneral,; tDo
espouse the contrar! view would spawn the dangerous precedent of
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
17/118
a hus(and committing as man! falsifications against his wife as he
could con6ure, see2ing shelter in the anti-marital privilege as a license
to in6ure and pre6udice her in secret = all with una(ashed and
complete impunit!.
'N J'E3 O& ALL T7E &O1E*O'N*, the order of the lower courtdated Farch $, /44, disualif!ing Jictoria Fanaloto from testif!ing
for or against her hus(and, Ben6amin Fanaloto, in Criminal Case No.
%, as well as the order dated Fa! /, /44, den!ing the motion
for reconsideration are here(! "ET A"'E. The temporar! restraining
order issued (! this Court is here(! lifted and the respondent udge
is here(! ordered to proceed with the trial of the case, allowing
Jictoria Fanaloto to testif! against her hus(and.
"O O1E1E.
/ernando :Chairman;, arredo, Antonio, A8uino and Concepcion, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
/oo!o"
"ee Anne0es ;A;, ;B;, and B-; of the #etition 1ollo, pp-
-@D.
Anne0 ;C; of the #etition 1ollo, pp. -4D.
$ 1ollo, p. $/.
G 4$id., p. GG.
@ 4$id., p. 4.
4$id., p. 94.
4 4$id., p. //.
9 *.1. No. L-$/%, anuar! $, /4@, "C1A 4%, at
4$.
/ 4d., p. 4G.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
18/118
% Jictoria Fanaloto, through her counsel assisted the
#rovincial &iscal of #ampanga in filling the instant petition
for certiorari rollo, pp. /-%D. &urthermore, she file on Aug.
, /44 a memorandum in support of the petition rollo, pp.
9-4GD, and, on ec. 9, /44, a pleading entitled
Chronologicall! = Effected O(servations and
Circumstances in "upport of or to Butress Femorandum for
#rivate #etitioner Jictoria F. Fanaloto, dated August 9,
/44 informing this Court that the trou(le in her marital
relation with her hus(and the herein private respondent is
;(e!ond repair.; rollo pp- %@- %9D.
#eople vs. &ransisco 49 #hil /G, 4%G cited in Ordono
vs. auigan, supra.D.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
19/118
Rule 130, section 23
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-58164. September 2, 1983.
!OS" G#"RR"RO, $%RI% G#"RR"RO, $%GD%L"N% G#"RR"RO"S&IRIT#, '(()(te* b+ er (b'* /%NDIDO "S&IRIT#, GR"GORIO
G#"RR"RO, /L%R% G#"RR"RO, "t %0., Petitioner , . ST. /L%R"SR"%LT /O., LTD., G#ILL"R$O T. G#"RR"RO, /"/ILI% G#"RR"RO,
'(()(te* b+ %NG"LO /%RD"O, &"RLIND% G#"RR"RO, et., "t%0., Respondents.
Romeo !. /'00eo, 7or Petitioners.
&ob0'*or, N''reo, %'*', Tom'r &'re*e L': O77)e( 7orre(po*et #)te* ;o()< /orp.
Nept'0) Go'0e( %((o)'te( 7or re(po*et Gerrero(.
F.=. S't)'
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
20/118
*a* 4a$= &'". I% ha $ h"* %ha% %a%'% !&#*#$/ %ha% a !a&% #$#$%&% # #$-4!%$% % %%# h& %h a*& !a&% # *a* & #$a$,4'% a!!"#* %-%" #$ a--&*a$- #%h %h#& !& &*#$/, #&&!-%# %h#& !#%. Th "a ' %h &* ?a/a#$% a$ -'%& & a*4#$#%&a%& &%h& &!&$%a%# a *-a* !&$.= I% h'"* $%* %ha% a%& %h4$%#$ a$ -'%& & a*4#$#%&a%& %h &* & %h& &!&$%a%#"", h#-h 4a$ %ha% %h &* ?&!&$%a%#= #$-"'* $" %h h,"#E :ASIS OF DEFENDANTS=EVIDENCE DISRE5ARDIN5 T>AT OF T>E PLAINTIFFS=; REMAND TO TRIALCOURT PROPER RECOURSE. — Th %a" -'&% &$*&* #% *-##$ "" $%h a# %h *$*a$%= #*$- a$* #%h'% &/a&* % %h !& %ha% %h!"a#$%# ha* !&$%* $ +'" 17, 167 & %h C'&% A!!a" -'"*#$a"" &" !"a#$%#= !%#%#$ % *#'a"# %h %a" G'*/. A 4*##* %h C'&% A!!a", %h *-##$ $%$- %h !"a#$%# % !a *a4a/ a$*a%%&$= %, a!a&% &4 %h -% '#%, #$ %h %a//$/ a4'$% TM#""#$ O$ >'$*&* E#/h% Th& Th'a$* a$* F# >'$*&*(P12,1H3,800.00) P, #%h'% !"a#$%# ha#$/ $ /#, %h -ha$- %-4!"% %h#& #*$-, % -&a4#$ %h #%$ %h *$, a$*% !&$% &'%%a" #*$-. Th a %h %a" -'&% a$* %h C'&% A!!a"!&-** #$ %h# -a, "#%#/a%#$ -a4 4& a /a4 %-h$#-a"#%# %ha$ a!&-*#$/ % a&-h %h %&'%h a$* 4% G'%#-. N %h& a#&& -'& a-%#$ # *4a$** '% & %h# C'&% % &4a$* %h -a & '&%h&!&-*#$/.
D " / I S I O N
V%S>#"?, J.@
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
21/118
I$ %h#& !%#%#$ & &# certiorari , !%#%#$& a&
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
22/118
5'&&& -'"* -$%#$' #$ %h -'"%#a%#$ %h "a$* a$* $G4$% %h$&= ha& #$ %h !&*'- & a "$/ a h $** %h !&!&%.D4#$a*& Ra4#&@ -$%#$'* h# %$a$- '$%#" h&%" & %h *a%h A$*& 5'&&&. S4%#4 #$ +'" 163, A$*& 5'&&& *#* '&#* h# #*, S/'$*a La'#$*a$'4, a$* %h#& -h#"*&$, h a& %h !%#%#$&#$ %h# -a. C%#$a 5'&&& -$%#$'* a %&'% %h *-a* A$*&5'&&&. -ha$&"#&%'a" "a"#&a&
Th -4!"a#$% '&%h& a""/* %ha% a a&" a D-4& 10, 1687, %h "a$*a '&* %h :'&a' La$* & a$* #$ %h $a4 A$*& 5'&&&a L% N. 782, Ca N. , Ca*a%& N. 226 %h Pa&aa' Ca*a%&.S4%#4 *'$/ %h "a%%& !a&% 1671 -&%a#$ !!" h #$%&*'-*%h4" a a/$% & '& %h "a$* a!!&a-h* 4 %h !"a#$%##$ &*& % -'& %h#& -$$% % %h a" %h !&!&%. Sa#* !"a#$%# &#$&4* %ha% %h "a$* a %#%"* #$ %h $a4 %h#& -'#$, Ma$'" 5'&&&.P"a#$%# 4a* #$'# a$* *#-&* %h ""#$/ %ha% Ma$'" 5'&&&
a a" % ha %h "% %#%"* #$ h# $a4 $ %h a# a ?D* Sa" La$*= *a%* A!" 2, 16H !'&!&%*" -'%* C%#$a 5'&&&; %ha% h-a'* %h "% % '&* #$ h# $a4 a L% N. 782 a$* h a #'*a*a$- P"a$ N. AP1000H $ F&'a& 2H, 1692; %ha% #$ %h a*a$- !"a$#'* % h#4, #% a *'" $%* %ha% L% N. 782 ha* $ !&#'"'&* & A$*& 5'&&&; %ha% #$ 1693, Ma$'" 5'&&&, a#%* F"#-##4 5'&&&, a%h& %h *$*a$% 5'&&&, #"* a$ a!!"#-a%#$ &&/#%&a%#$ "a$* #%h %h C'&% F#&% I$%a$- R#@a"; %ha%$%#%h%a$*#$/ %h !!#%#$ %h h#& C%#$a 5'&&&, %h -'&%
&'"* %ha% Ma$'" 5'&&& $* %h "%; %ha% *!#% !!#%&= a!!a" % ah#/h& -'&%, %h R/#%& D* #'* O/#$a" C&%##-a% T#%" N. 861% %h a!!"#-a$%; %ha% $ S!%4& 1, 1671, %h& a #"* #%h %hR/#%& D* R#@a" a D* A"'% Sa" !'&!&%*" -'%* Ma$'" 5'&&& #$ a& %h *$*a$% 5'&&&; %ha% %h R/#%& D* /a *' -'& % %h &/#%&a%#$ %ha% **, -a$-""* OCT N.861 a$* a #'* T&a$& C&%##-a% N. 336926 #$ #% %a*; %ha% $ %ha4 *a %ha% %h ** a" a &/#%&*, %h *$*a$% 5'&&&-a'* % $%a@* a$ A&%#-" Pa&%$&h#! S%. C"a&= Ra"%C4!a$, L%*., -$%#%'%#$/ %h4" a !a&%$&; %ha% $ S!%4& 2H,1671, %h *$*a$% 5'&&& "* %h *#!'%* "% #$ a D* A"'%Sa" % %h S%. C"a&= Ra"% C4!a$, L%*.; %ha% #&%' %h&, %hR/#%& D* #'* TCT N. 30H2 #$ %h $a4 a#* &a"% -4!a$.
A--&*#$/ % %h /#$a" a$* a4$** -4!"a#$%, %h D* Sa" #$ a& Ma$'" 5'&&& a &a'*'"$%, #4'"a%* a$* a"##* & %h &a$, a4$/%h&, %ha% C%#$a 5'&&& a $% %h $& %h "a$* a% %h %#4 h!'&!&%*" "* #%; %ha% Ma$'" 5'&&& %a#$* OCT N. 861 #$ &a'* %h !"a#$%#; %ha% %h D* Sa" % %h *$*a$% 5'&&& a$* S%.
C"a&= Ra"% C4!a$, L%*. a$* %h %&a$& -&%##-a% %#%" #$ %h#& a&a& &a'*'"$% a$* #4'"a%*, a$* #$-%# a/a#$% %h !"a#$%# & %h&a$, a4$/ %h&, %ha% a% %h %#4 -'%#$ %h D* Sa", %h*$*a$% 5'&&&
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
23/118
%ha% %h a#* a/&4$% a $%&* #$% #$ /& a$* #*$% a* a#%h.
S!a&a% a$& & #"* %h *$*a$% 5'&&&, S%. C"a&= Ra"%C4!a$, L%*. a$* U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$. Th *$*a$% 5'&&&a""/* %ha% C%#$a 5'&&& a %h a"'% $& %h !&!&%; %ha% %ha-%#$ %h !"a#$%# ha* !&-* a$* %h a& /'#"% "a-h. S%. C"a&= Ra"% C4!a$, L%*. a&&* %ha% #% -$%&a-% #%h U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$a 4a* #$ /* a#%h. U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$ a&&* %ha% %h& # $!#% #$%&% %$ !"a#$%# a$* %h# *$*a$% -$#*$/ %ha% %h!"a#$%# a& $% !a&%# % %h +#$% V$%'& A/&4$%.
I' ha#$/ $ G#$*, %h -a !&-** % %a".
F- C&a$%, /&a$*$ C%#$a 5'&&&, %%##* a a #%$ %h!"a#$%# %ha% ha#$/ ha* !&#' #$&4a%#$ %ha% %h *#!'%* "% a&&* &4 A$*& 5'&&& a$* %ha% C%#$a 5'&&& 4&" 4&%/a/*
#% % Ma$'" 5'&&&, h $% % %h h' Ma$'" 5'&&& #$ :a& Sa$D#$##, Pa&aa', R#@a", #$ 169H a% %h h% %h !"a#$%#, % #$'#&a'% %h 4&%/a/; %ha% #$ &!", Ma$'" 5'&&& %a%* %ha% %h "a$* ha*$ "* '% #% '"* -ha$/* #%h a$%h& "% %h a4 a&a; %ha% #$1670, S%& C&a$% a$* La'&a C&a$%, -h#"*&$ C%#$a 5'&&&,a$* h $% % Ma$'" 5'&&& a% %h S%a. R#%a Ch'&-h #$ Pa&aa';%ha% S%& a$* La'&a a
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
24/118
O$ O-%& 16, 1673, La'&a C&a$% %%##* %ha% h& 4%h&, C%#$a5'&&&, ha* $ #-< & a "$/ %#4 & h *#* a% %h a/ H0 a&#$ 16H; a$* %ha% h& 4%h& -'"* a"< $" #$#* %h#& h' #$ Pa&aa';%ha% %h 4$ !$% & %h #""$ h& 4%h& -a4 &4 Ma$'"5'&&&; a$* %ha%, %h&'/h h& -h#"*&$, C%#$a 5'&&& -'"* a< 4$&4 Ma$'" 5'&&& -a' %h "a$* %ha% A$*& 5'&&& ha* "$% %h&.
A%& La'&a C&a$% ha* %h' %%##*, -'$" & %h *$*a$% 5'&&&G-%* % %h "#$ '%#$#$/ $ %h /&'$* %ha% %h a#* #%$ a%%##$/ $ 4a%%& h#-h a& !&h##%* '$*& S-. 20(a), R'" 130, %hR'" C'&%. Th %a" -'&% ha#$/ &'"* %ha% %h #%$ 4a a$&,*$*a$%= -'$" &/#%&* a -$%#$'#$/ G-%#$. Th -'&% a""* %h#%$ % -$%#$' h& %%#4$ 'G-% % '-h G-%#$. (TSN, !!. 620,O-%& 16, 1673.)
R'4#$/ h& %%#4$, La'&a C&a$% %a%* %ha% %h "a$* a "$% A$*& 5'&&& % C%#$a 5'&&&; %ha% Ma$'" 5'&&& "a$* 4$ %C%#$a 5'&&& & '#% 4 %#4; %ha% h&%" a%& %h *a%h C%#$a5'&&&, Ma$'" 5'&&& $% % %h#& h', a--4!a$#* F"#-##45'&&&, a$* '44* '! %h "a$ h ha* %$** % C%#$a 5'&&& #$%h %%a" a4'$% P1,600.00; a$* %ha% F"#-##4 5'&&& a$&a" P&#*#$/+'*/ O Th# >$&a" C'&% T I$h##% >#4" A$*KO& T T&a$& Ca TA$%h& :&a$-h. O!!#%#$ % %h a#* 4%#$ & #"*. O$ A!" 29, 167,%h %a" -'&% *$#* %h 4%#$.
A% %h -$%#$'a%#$ %h %a" $ +'$ 1, 167, !"a#$%# a$* %h#& -'$"a#"* % a!!a& *!#% *' $%#- a$* &!a%* !&#' a&$#$/ % %h#&"a&. I$%a* a!!a$/ #$ -'&%, !"a#$%#, %h&' -'$", #"* a$ '&/$%4%#$ % &% %h ha$/, h#-h a !!* %h *$*a$%. O$ $*a%, %h -'&% #'* a$ &*& a "" G/--ha$&".-4.!h
I$ # %h $$a!!a&a$- %h !"a#$%# a "" a %h#& -'$" &%*a= ha$/, %h a& *4* % ha a#* %h#& /h% % '&%h& !&$%& &4a"" & %h#& #*$- #$ -'&%, a$* $ 4%#$ *$*a$%=-'$", %h C"&< C'&%, A%%. +'a$ A. Ca&a4a, # h& a'%h@* a$*-44##$* % &-# %h #*$- & %h *$*a$%. A%& %h *$*a$%ha -"* %h#& -a, %h a& /#$ 10 *a #%h#$ h#-h % #" %h#&&!-%# 44&a$*a a$* %h -a # *4* '4#%%* & *-##$ a%&&-#!% %h -4!"% %&a$-!% %$/&a!h#- $%. (R-&* $ A!!a",
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
25/118
!. 212.)
O$ +'$ 22, 167, !"a#$%# #"* a Ma$#%a%#$ % %h -% %ha% %h *#*$% a# %h#& /h% % !&$% '&%h& #*$-, % -&a4#$*$*a$%= #%$, a$* % !&$% &'%%a" #*$-; a$* %ha% %h &&&#$/ %h &-# %h /h% '!$ %h #$a"#% %h *-##$ %hC'&% A!!a" #$ a !%#%#$ & certiorari , !&h##%#$ a$* 4a$*a4' a/a#$%%h P&#*#$/ +'*/ %h %a" -'&%, h#-h %h & %h$ !&!a$/ % #".
I$**, $ +'$ 28, 167, !"a#$%# #$%#%'%* %h a#* !-#a" -##" a-%#$,h#-h a *-EREFORE, G'*/4$% # h& &$*&* #$ a& %h *$*a$% (a$*)a/a#$% %h !"a#$%# -ha$&1#&%'a" 1a"#&a&
1. D#4##$/ %h -4!"a#$% a$* A4$** C4!"a#$%;
2. O&*$/ %h !"a#$%# % !a %h !a% *$*a$% 5'&&& %h a4'$%
P20,000.00 & a-%'a" *a4a/, P800,000.00 & 4&a" *a4a/ a$*P10,000.00 a a%%&$= ;
3. O&*$/ %h !"a#$%# % !a %h *$*a$% S%. C"a&= Ra"% C. L%*., %ha4'$% P1,623,000.00 a a-%'a" *a4a/, P80,000.00 a 4!"a&*a4a/ a$* P8,000.00 a a%%&$= ;
. O&*$/ %h !"a#$%# % !a %h *$*a$% U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$ %ha4'$% P60,800.00 a a-%'a" *a4a/; P100,000.00 & " /*#""a$* '#$ &!'%a%#$, PH0,000.00 a 4!"a& *a4a/, P18,000.00 a"a&= ; a$*
8. T !a %h -% '#%.
Th R/#%& D* R#@a" # h& *#&-%* % -a$-" %h L# P$*$ #$T&a$& C&%##-a% T#%" N. 30H2 #$ %h $a4 %h S%. C"a&= Ra"%C., L%*., :< T1671. Ma$h#", %h *$*a$% U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$# &*&* % !&-* a$* -$%#$' #%h #% -44#%4$% '$*& %hM4&a$*'4 A/&4$% *a%* O-%& 12, 1671. (R-&* $ A!!a", !!.
286291.) -&a"a$a*
O$ +'" 20, 167, & %h& (3) *a & !"a#$%# &-#* %h *-##$,%h #"* #%h %h %a" -'&% a M%#$ EA'$*a$%#a Ca'%"a !&a#$/ %ha%h'"* %h C'&% A!!a" &$*& a$ a*& &"'%#$ #$ CA5.R. N. SF03120, %h "& -'&% h'"* % a#* #% &*& +'$ 1, 167 a$* a""!"a#$%# % !&$% %h& #*$-, -&a4#$ #%$ %h*$*a$%, a$* !&$% &'%%a" #*$-.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
26/118
O$ A'/'% 21, 167, !"a#$%# #"* a 4%#$ & &-$#*&a%#$ %h *-##$h#-h %h &-#* $ +'" 23, 167.
Ea&" #$ 1678, +'*/ A&$# A"-a$%a&a h &$*&* %h *-##$ a&!"a-* +'*/ F"&"#a$a Ca%&:a&%"4. I$ h& &*& F&'a& 13,1678, +'*/ Ca%&:a&%"4 &"* %ha% G/--ha$&".-4.!h
1) Th !"a#$%#= ?M%#$ EA'$*a$%#a Ca'%"a= *a%* +'" 1H, 167, ha#$/$ !a* '!$ +'*/ A&$# :. A"-a$%a&a %h &$*#%#$ %hD-##$ *a%* +'" 17, 167, # *4* % ha $ -"a&" *$#* %h>$&a" +'*/ h !$$* %h a#* *-##$;
2) Th !"a#$%#= ?M%#$ & R-$#*&a%#$= *a%* A'/'% 21, 167 a$* ?S'!!"4$%a" M%#$ & R-$#*&a%#$= *a%* A'/'% 22, 167, ha % a %h a& h&, *$#*;
x x x
8) Th !"a#$%#= ?M%#$ & R-$#*&a%#$= a$* ?S'!!"4$%a" M%#$ &R-$#*&a%#$= a& $% !&&4a a$* ha '!$** %h &'$$#$/ %h!* a!!a". -&a"a#&%'a1a"#&a&
O$ F&'a& 21, 1678, !"a#$%# !&-%* %h#& a!!a" % %h C'&% A!!a"
h& %h -a a *-
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
27/118
h$ %h a#"* % a!!a& a% a ha$/ % %h %a" G'*/ *'$/ %h!$*$- !&-*#$/ %a
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
28/118
'&%h& %%##$/, '!$ &a$#$/ %ha% '$*'" %&a#$* %h 4a$#$/ %h!&##$ %h R'" C'&% &"#* '!$, %h %a" -'&% *!* #%" %h !!&%'$#% $-, %h #$a!!"#-a#"#% %h*a* 4a$= &'".
I% ha $ h"* %ha% %a%'% !&#*#$/ %ha% a !a&% #$ #$%&% # #$-4!%$%% %%# h& %h a*& !a&% # *a* & #$a$, 4'% a!!"#* %-%" #$a--&*a$- #%h %h#& !& &*#$/, #&&!-%# %h#& !#%. Th "a '%h &* ?a/a#$% a$ -'%& & a*4#$#%&a%& & %h& &!&$%a%# a*-a* !&$.= I% h'"* $%* %ha% a%& %h 4$%#$ a$ -'%& &
a*4#$#%&a%& %h &* & %h& &!&$%a%# "", h#-h 4a$ %ha% %h&* ?&!&$%a%#= #$-"'* $" %h h, "#
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
29/118
Ca*a%&. A$*& 5'&&& a %h "$ -"a#4a$%. U$%#" 1692, $ %h& !&$-"a#4* %h "%.
Th &/#$/ !& a& 4a%a"" $ %h '%#$ &a#* %h !"a#$%#a % h%h& & $% (1) C%#$a 5'&&& & A$*& 5'&&& $* %h "%h$ %h &4& !'&!&%*" "* #% % Ma$'" 5'&&& #$ 16H; (2) C%#$a5'&&& &a"" "* & 4&" 4&%/a/* %h "a$* % Ma$'" 5'&&&; (3)Ma$'" 5'&&& a$*, a%& h#4, %h *$*a$% 5'&&& & '& #$/* a#%h. I$%a* #$'"a%#$/ #%" &4 #*$- %ha% -'"* "a* #% % %h%&'%h, %h %a" -'&% h'"* ha a**&* #%" % %h '%#$ h (1) # #%# %&' %ha% C%#$a 5'&&& a %h $& %h *#!'%* "% #$ 16H, %h-a*a%&a" '&& h a-%'a"" &!a#&* % %h #"* "#%* A$*& 5'&&& a%h " -"a#4a$% %h !&!&%, (2) '$%#" 1692, $ %h& !&$ -!%A$*& 5'&&& -"a#4* %h "% a h# $; (3) $%#%h%a$*#$/ %h !'&!&%*** a" C%#$a 5'&&& % Ma$'" 5'&&& a -'%* $ A!"2, 16H, #% a !&$%* & &/#%&a%#$ #%h %h R/#%& D* a"4%
%$ (10) a& "a%& $" $ F&'a& 27, 168H (TSN, !. 18, +a$'a& 6, 167);() #$ %h ** a" % Ma$'" 5'&&&, #% # %a%* %ha% h a!!a&* #$Pa&aa', R#@a", & A%%. + D. V#""$a h a a $%a& !'"#- #$MaEREFORE, %h *-##$ %h &!$*$% C'&% A!!a" # h& %
a#*. L% %h &-&* %h -a &4a$** % %h -'&% /#$ #%h#$%&'-%#$ % %h %a" -'&% % a"" %h !"a#$%# % -4!"% %h#& #*$-,% -&a4#$ %h *$*a$%= #%$, a$* % !&$% &'%%a" #*$-# %h *#&, a$* %h&a%& % *-#* %h -a a$.
SO ORDERED.
M"$-#>&&&a, P"a$a, R"a a$* 5'%#&&@, +&., JJ., -$-'&.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
30/118
Tha$
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
31/118
"ECON 'J'"'ON
G.R. No. L-2#3 S""7" 23, 19$6
GENARO GOI, RU/INA P. 4('. DE :ILLANUE:A, :IOLA P.
:ILLANUE:A, OSCAR P. :ILLANUE:A, %ARINA P. :ILLANUE:A,:ERNA P. :ILLANUE:A, PRA;EDES P. :ILLANUE:A, JR., JOSEP. :ILLANUE:A, SA%UEL P. :ILLANUE:A, LOURDES P.
:ILLANUE:A, %ILAGROS P. :ILLANUE:A DEARRIETA, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
THE COURT O/ APPEALS '!( GASPAR :ICENTE, respondents-
appellees.
Am$rosio 3adilla aw 7ffice for petitioners-appellants.
!an Juan, Africa, Gonales < !an A"ustin aw 7ffice for
respondents-appellees.
/ERNAN, J.:
This is an appeal (! certiorari from the decision of the then Court of
Appeals in CA-*.1. No. 49%%-1 entitled,=Gaspar 6icente, 3laintiff-
Appellant, vs. Genaro Goni, et. al., #efendants-Appellants= as well as
from the resolution den!ing petitioners8 motion for reconsideration.
The factual (ac2drop is as follows:
The three $D haciendas 2nown as "an "e(astian, "arria and ulce
Nom(re de Faria situated in the Funicipalit! of Bais, Negros
Oriental, were originall! owned (! the Compania *eneral de Ta(acos
de &ilipinas >TABACALE1A?. "ometime in /G/, the late #ra0edes T.
Jillanueva, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, negotiated with
TABACALE1A for the purchase of said haciendas. 7owever, as he
did not have sufficient funds to pa! the price, Jillanueva with the
consent of TABACALE1A, offered to sell 7acienda "arria to one
"antiago Jillegas, who was later su(stituted (! oauin Jillegas.
Allegedl! (ecause TABACALE1A did not agree to the transaction
(etween Jillanueva and Jillegas, without a guarant! private
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
32/118
respondent *aspar Jicente stood as guarantor, for Jillegas in favor
of TABACALE1A. The guarantee was em(odied in a document
denominated as ;Escritura de Traspaso de Cuenta.; 1
Either (ecause the amount reali+ed from the transaction (etween
Jillanueva and Jillegas still fell short of the purchase price of thethree haciendas, or in consideration of the guarant! underta2en (!
private respondent Jicente, Jillanueva contracted or promised to sell
to the latter fields nos. $, G and $ of 7acienda ulce Nom(re de
Faria for the sum of #$,9%4.%%. This agreement was reduced to
writing and signed (! petitioner *enaro *oni as attorne!-in-fact of
Jillanueva, thus:
En consideracion a la garantia ue on *aspar Jicente
assume con la Cia. *ral. de Ta(acos de &ilipinas por el
saldo de on "antiago Jillegas de #G$,@$/.4@ asumido por
on oauin Jillegas el ue "u(scri(e #ra0edes T.
Jillanueva se compromete ceder es venta a on *aspar
Jicente los campos nos. $, G ! $ del plano de porcelario de
la 7acienda ulce Nom(re de Faria, en compra pro6ectada
de la Cia. *ral. de Ta(acos de &ilipinas. Estas campos
representan -/%-$@ hectares por valor de #$,9%4.%% ue
on *asper Jicente pagara directamente a #ra0edes T.
Jillanueva
Bais Central, Octu(re G, /G/.
&do. #ra0edes T. Jillanueva
#or: &do *enaro *oMi Apoderado 2
#rivate respondent Jicente thereafter advised TABACALE1A to de(it
from his account the amount of #$,9%4.%% as pa!ment for the
(alance of the purchase price. 7owever, as onl! the amount of
#,G%.G was actuall! needed to complete the purchase price, onl!
the latter amount was de(ited from private respondent8s account. The
difference was supposedl! paid (! private respondent to Jillanueva,
(ut as no receipt evidencing such pa!ment was presented in court,
this fact was disputed (! petitioners.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
33/118
't is alleged (! petitioners that su(seuent to the e0ecution of the
contractpromise to sell, Jillanueva was a(le to raise funds (! selling
a propert! in A!ungon, Negros Oriental. 7e thus went to private
respondent Jicente for the purpose of rescinding the
contractpromise to sell 7owever, as the amount of #,G%.G had
alread! (een de(ited from private respondent8s account, it was
agreed that lots G and $ of the 7acienda ulce Nom(re de Faria
would merel! (e leased to private respondent Jicente for a period of
five @D !ears starting with crop-!ear /@%-@ at an annual rental of
@ of the gross income, said rent to (e deducted from the mone!
advanced (! private respondent and an! (alance owing to Jillanueva
would (e delivered (! Jicente together with the lots at the end of thestipulated period of lease.
On ecem(er %, /G/, TABACALE1A e0ecuted a formal deed of
sale covering the three haciendas in favor of Jillanueva. &ields Nos.
$, G and $ of the 7acienda ulce Nom(re de Faria were thereafter
registered in the name of Jillanueva under TCT No. T-G49% of the
1egister of eeds of Negros Oriental. The fields were li2ewisemortgaged (! Jillanueva to the 1eha(ilitation &inance Corporation
1&CD, later transferred to the #hilippine National Ban2 on ecem(er
, /@@, for a total inde(tedness of
#$$G,G%%.%%. 3
Feanwhile, &ields nos. G and $ were delivered to private respondent
Jicente after the /G/-/@% milling season in anuar! and &e(ruar!,/@%.
On une 4, /@%, Jillanueva e0ecuted a ;ocumento de la Jenta
efinitive; in favor of oauin Jillegas, covering Lot No. $G of the
Cadastral "urve! of Bais with an area of G9,4 suare meters,
more or less. 7acienda "arriaD. A supplemental instrument was later
e0ecuted (! Jillanueva in favor of Jillegas to include in the sale ofune 4, /@% the sugar uota of the land.
On Novem(er , /@, Jillanueva died. 'ntestate proceedings were
instituted on Novem(er G, /@ (efore the then Court of &irst
'nstance of Negros Oriental, doc2eted as "pecial Case No. 444.
Among the properties included in the inventor! su(mitted to the court
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
34/118
were fields nos. $, G and $ of 7acienda ulce Nom(re de Faria.
&ield no. $ with an area of hectare, GG ares and /@ centares was
listed as Lot no. 4$ of the inventor! while fields nos. $ and G, with
areas of $ hectares, 4@ ares and % centares, and hectare, / ares
and 9% centares, respectivel!, were included in Lot no. @4 of the
inventor!.
On Octo(er 4, /@G, the da! (efore the intestate proceedings were
ordered closed and the estate of the late #ra0edes Jillanueva
delivered to his heirs, private respondent Jicente instituted an action
for recover! of propert! and damages (efore the then Court of &irst
'nstance of Negros Oriental against petitioner *oMi in his capacit! as
administrator of the intestate estate of #ra0edes Jillanueva. 'n his
complaint doc2eted as Civil Case No. //%, private respondent
Jicente sought to recover field no. $ of the 7acienda ulce Nom(re
de Faria, (asing his entitlement thereto on the contractpromise to
sell e0ecuted (! the late #ra0edes Jillanueva in his favor on Octo(er
G, /G/. 7e li2ewise pra!ed (! wa! of attorne!8s fees and other
costs the sum of #,%%%.%% and for such other further relief which thecourt ma! deem 6ust and euita(le in the premises.
On Octo(er @, /@G, petitioner *oni as defendant in Civil Case No.
//%, filed an answer with counterclaim for accounting of the produce
of fields nos. G and $, as well as the surrerder thereof on une %,
/@@, the end of the fifth crop-!ear, plus moral damages in the sum of
#$%,%%%.%% and #$,%%%.%% as attorne!8s fees. After an answer to thecounter-claim had (een filed, private respondent Jicente amended
his complaint on "eptem(er , /@@, to include a pra!er for damages
representing the produce of field no. $ from /G/-@% until deliver!
thereof to him. An answer with counterclaim to the amended
complaint was dul! filed, and on April @, /@, private respondent
Jicente amended his complaint anew to include as parties-
defendants the heirs of the late #ra0edes Jillanueva.
On ul! $, /@4, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts,
agreeing, among others, on the costs of production and produce of
the three fields in uestion. The case thereafter proceeded to trial.
#laintiff presented two D witnesses: then part!-plaintiff *aspar
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
35/118
Jicente, himself, who over the o(6ection of therein defendants
testified on facts occurring (efore the death of #ra0edes Jillanueva,
and Epifanio Euio a cler2 of TABACALE1A Agenc! in the Bais
"ugar Central. efendants presented *enaro *oni, who testified on
the alleged ver(al lease agreement.
On ecem(er 9, /@/, the trial court rendered a decision ordering
therein defendants-heirs to deliver to *aspar Jicente field no $, to
e0ecute a formal deed of sale covering fields nos. $, G and $ in favor
of Jicente, to pa! the latter actual or compensator! damages in the
amount of # 9,%G.G9, representing @ of the total gross income of
field no. $ for crop-!ears /@%-@ to /@9-@/, and such other
amounts as ma! (e due from said field for the crop !ears su(seuent
to crop-!ear /@9-@/, until the field is delivered to Jicente, and to pa!
the sum of #,%%%.%% as attorne!8s fees plus costs. Therein
defendant *oMi was relieved of an! civil lia(ilit! for damages, either
personall! or as administrator of the estate. 5
Both parties appealed the decision to the then Court of Appeals< the
plaintiff from the portion awarding damages on a claim that he was
entitled to more, and defendants, from the entire decision.
On ecem(er @, /, the Court of Appeals promulgated its
decision, affirming that of the lower court, with the modification that
the amount of damages to (e paid (! defendant-heirs to the plaintiff
should (e the total net income from field no. $ from the crop !ear
/@%-@ until said field is finall! delivered to the plaintiff plus interest
thereon at the legal rate per annum. 6
#etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, (ut were denied the
relief sought in a resolution dated &e(ruar! /, /4. 7ence, the
present appeal (! certiorari where(! petitioners raise the following
uestions of law:
FAI 1E"#ONENT *A"#A1 J'CENTE TE"T'&I ON
FATTE1" O& &ACT OCC)11'N* BE&O1E T7E EAT7
O& #1AEE" T. J'LLAN)EJA, 37'C7 CON"T'T)TE" A
CLA'F O1 EFAN )#ON 7'" E"TATE. 'N J'OLAT'ON
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
36/118
O& 1)LE $, "EC, , #A1. CD, NO3 1)LE $%, "EC.
% #A1. ADH
FAI NOT A 31'TTEN #1OF'"E TO "ELL ATE
OCTOBE1 G,/G/ BE NOJATE 'NTO A JE1BAL
A*1EEFENT O& LEA"E )1'N* T7E L'&ET'FE O& T7E#1OF'""O1, 37O"E EAT7 OCC)11E ON
NOJEFBE1 , /@, BI &ACT" AN C'1C)F"TANCE"
")B"TANT'ATE BI COF#ETENT O1AL EJ'ENCE 'N
T7'" CA"EH
"7O)L T7E #1OF'"EE 'N A #1OF'"E TO "ELL, 37O
#A' #,G%.G 37'C7 3A" TO BE ACCO)NTE ANTO BE C1E'TE A" 1ENTAL" A&TE1 &'JE @D IEA1"
O& LEA"E, 37O 'N 7'" O1'*'NAL COF#LA'NT ' NOT
ALLE*E NO1 #1OJE AFA*E", ECE#T T7E ")F O&
#,%%%.%% A" ATTO1NEI8" &EE", 1ECE'JE A
)*FENT &O1 AFA*E" 'N T7E AFO)NT O&
#4G,%@.$@ 37'C7 CON"'"T" O& #$4,. #L)"
LE*AL 'NTE1E"T &O1 T7E C1O# IEA1" /@%-@ TO
/@9-@/ AN &O1 #$,G.9 TO #G,$4G.49 &O1 EJE1I
C1O# IEA1 ")B"EP)ENT TO /@9-@/ #L)"
'NTE1E"TH #
3e find that neither the trial nor appellate court erred in ruling for the
admissi(ilit! in evidence of private respondent Jicente8s testimon!.
)nder ordinar! circumstances, private respondent Jicente $ would (e disualified(! reason of interest from testif!ing as to an! matter of fact occurring (efore the death of #ra0edes T. Jillanueva, such disualification (eing anchored on "ection
%aD of 1ule $%, commonl! 2nown as the "urvivorship isualification 1ule or ead Fan "tatute, which provides as follows:
"ection %. isualification (! reason of interest or
relationship.-The following persons cannot testif! as to
matters in which the! are interested, directl! or indirectl!, as
herein enumerated:
aD #arties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in
whose (ehalf a case is prosecuted, against an e0ecutor or
administrator or other representative of a deceased person,
or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person or
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
37/118
against such person of unsound mind, cannot testif! as to
an! matter of fact occurring (efore the death of such
deceased person or (efore such person (ecame of unsound
mind.
The o(6ect and purpose of the rule is to guard against the temptationto give false testimon! in regard to the transaction in uestion on the
part of the surviving part! and further to put the two parties to a suit
upon terms of eualit! in regard to the opportunit! of giving
testimon!. 9 't is designed to close the lips of the part! plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the part! defendant, in order to remove from thesurviving part! the temptation to falsehood and the possi(ilit! of fictitious claims against the deceased.
10
The case at (ar, although instituted against the heirs of #ra0edesJillanueva after the estate of the latter had (een distri(uted to them,
remains within the am(it of the protection. The reason is that the
defendants-heirs are properl! the ;representatives; of the deceased,
not onl! (ecause the! succeeded to the decedent8s right (! descent
or operation of law, (ut more importantl! (ecause the! are so placed
in litigation that the! are called on to defend which the! have o(tained
from the deceased and ma2e the defense which the deceased might
have made if living, or to esta(lish a claim which deceased might
have (een interested to esta(lish, if living. 11
"uch protection, however, was effectivel! waived when counsel for
petitioners cross-e0amined private respondent Jicente. ;A waiver
occurs when plaintiff8s deposition is ta2en (! the representative of the
estate or when counsel for the representative cross-e0amined the
plaintiff as to matters occurring during deceased8s lifetime. 12 't must further (eo(served that petitioners presented a counterclaim against private respondent Jicente. 3hen Jicente thus too2 the witness stand, it was in a dual capacit! as
plaintiff in the action for recover! of propert! and as defendant in the counterclaim for accounting and surrender of fields nos. G and $. Evidentl!, as defendant in
the counterclaim, he was not disualified from testif!ing as to matters of fact occurring (efore the death of #ra0edes Jillanueva, said action not having (een
(rought against, (ut (! the estate or representatives of the estatedeceased person.
Li2ewise, under a great ma6orit! of statutes, the adverse part! is
competent to testif! to transactions or communications with the
deceased or incompetent person which were made with an agent ofsuch person in cases in which the agent is still alive and competent to
testif!. But the testimon! of the adverse part! must (e confined to
those transactions or communications which were had with the
agent. 13 The contractpromise to sell under consideration was signed (! petit ioner *oMi as attorne!-in-fact apoderadoD of #ra0edes Jillanueva. 7e waspriv! to the circumstances surrounding the e0ecution of such contract and therefore could either confirm or den! an! allegations made (! private respondent
Jicente with respect to said contract. The ineualit! or in6ustice sought to (e avoided (! "ection %aD of 1ule $%, where one of the parties no longer has the
opportunit! to either confirm or re(ut the testimon! of the other (ecause death has permanentl! sealed the former8s lips, does not actuall! e0ist in the case at (ar,
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
38/118
for the reason that petitioner *oMi could and did not negate the (inding effect of the contractpromise to sell. Thus, while admitting the e0istence of the said
contractpromise to sell, petitioner *oMi testified that the same was su(seuentl! novated into a ver(al contract of lease over fields nos. G and $ of the 7acienda
ulce Nom(re de Faria.
Novation ta2es place when the o(6ect or principal condition of an
o(ligation is changed or altered. 1 'n order, however, that an o(ligation ma! (e e0tinguished (! another whichsu(stitutes the same, it is imperative that it (e so declared in uneuivocal terms, or that the old and the new o(ligations (e on ever! point incompati(le with each
other.15
;Novation is never presumed. 't must (e esta(lished that the old and the new contracts are incompati(le in all points, or that the will to novate appear (!
e0press agreement of the parties or in acts of euivalent import.16
The novation of the written contractpromise to sell into a ver(al
agreement of lease was clearl! and convincingl! proven not onl! (!
the testimon! of petitioner *oMi, (ut li2ewise (! the acts and conduct
of the parties su(seuent to the e0ecution of the contractpromise to
sell. Thus, after the milling season of crop !ear /G/-@%, onl! fields
nos. G and $ were delivered to private respondent Jicente. &ields
nos. $, G and $ were su(seuentl! registered in Jillanueva8s name
and mortgaged with the 1&C. Jillanueva li2ewise e0ecuted a deed of
sale covering 7acienda "arria in favor of oauin Jillegas. All these
were 2nown to private respondent Jicente, !et he did not ta2e an!
steps toward asserting andor protecting his claim over fields nos. $,
G and $ either (! demanding during the lifetime of Jillanueva thatthe latter e0ecute a similar document in his favor, or causing notice of
his adverse claim to (e annotated on the certificate of title of said lots.
'f it were true that he made demands on Jillanueva for the surrender
of field no. $ as well as the e0ecution of the corresponding deed of
sale, he should have, upon refusal of the latter to do so, immediatel!
or within a reasona(le time thereafter, instituted an action for
recover!, or as previousl! o(served, caused his adverse claim to (eannotated on the certificate of title. Considering that field no. $,
containing an area of three $D hectares, 4@ ares and % centares, is
the (iggest among the three lots, an ordinar! prudent man would
have ta2en these steps if he honestl! (elieved he had an! right
thereto. Iet, private respondent Jicente did neither. 'n fact such
inaction persisted even during the pendenc! of the intestate
proceedings wherein he could have readil! intervened to see2
e0clusion of fields nos. $, G and $ from the inventor! of properties of
the late #ra0edes Jillanueva.
The reason given (! private respondent Jicente that field no. $ was
not delivered to him together with fields nos. G and $ (ecause there
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
39/118
were small sugar cane growing on said field at that time (elonging to
TABACALE1A, might (e ta2en as a plausi(le e0planation wh! he
could not ta2e immediate possession of lot no. $, (ut it certainl! could
not e0plain wh! it too2 him four !ears (efore instituting an action in
court, and ver! convenientl!, as petitioners noted, after Jillanueva
had died and at the time when the ver(al contract of lease was a(out
to e0pire.
Both the trial and appellate courts chose to (elieve in the
contractpromise to sell rather than the lease agreement, simpl!
(ecause the former had (een reduced to writing, while the latter was
merel! ver(al. 't must (e o(served, though, that the contractpromise
to sell was signed (! petitioner *oMi as attorne!-in-fact of the late
#ra0edes Jillanueva, an indication, to our mind, that final
arrangements were made (! petitioner *oMi in the a(sence of
Jillanueva. 't was therefore natural for private respondent Jicente to
have demanded that the agreement (e in writing to erase an! dou(t
of its (inding effect upon Jillanueva. On the other hand, the ver(al
lease agreement was negotiated (! and (etween Jillanueva andprivate respondent Jicente themselves. Being close friends and
relatives 1# it can (e safel! assumed that the! did not find it necessar! to reduce the same into writing.
'n re6ecting petitioners8 contention respecting the ver(al lease
agreement, the appellate court put much weight on the failure of
petitioners to demand an accounting of the produce of fields nos. G
and $ from /@% to /@G, when the action for recover! of propert!was filed. "uch failure was satisfactoril! e0plained (! petitioners in
their motion for reconsideration filed (efore the then Court of Appeals,
in this manner:
... Fr. *enaro *oni is also a farmer (! profession and that
there was no need for him to demand a !earl! accounting of
the total production (ecause the ver(al lease agreementwas for a term of @ !ears. The defendant Fr. *enaro *oni
as a sugar planter has alread! full 2nowledge as to the
annual income of said lots nos. G and $, and since there
was the amount of #,G%.@ to (e liuidated, said
defendant never deemed it wise to demand such a !earl!
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
40/118
accounting. 't was onl! after or (efore the e0piration of the @
!ear lease that said defendant demanded the accounting
from the herein plaintiff regarding the production of the lots
that were then leased to him.
't is the custom among the sugar planters in this localit! thatthe Lessee usuall! demands an advance amount to cover
the rental for the period of the lease, and the demand of an
accounting will (e onl! made after the e0piration of the
lease period. 't was adduced during the trial that the amount
of #,G%.4@ was considered as an advance rental of the
lots which was leased to the #laintiff, lots nos. G and $< so
we hum(l! (elieve that there was no necessit! on the part
of defendant Fr. *enaro *oMi to ma2e a !earl! demand for
an accounting for the total production of parcels leased to
the plaintiff. 1$
#etitioners, having clearl! and sufficientl! shown that the
contractpromise to sell was su(seuentl! novated into a ver(al lease
agreement, it follows that the! are entitled to a favora(le decision on
their counterclaim. iscussion of the third issue raised therefore
(ecomes unnecessar!.
37E1E&O1E, the decision appealed from is here(! reversed. The
6udicial administrator of the estate of private respondent *aspar
Jicente andor his successors-in-interest are here(! ordered to: aD
surrender possession of fields nos. G and $ of the 7acienda ulce
Nom(re de Faria to petitioners< (D render an accounting of the
produce of said fields for the period (eginning crop-!ear /@%-@ until
complete possession thereof shall have (een delivered to petitioners<
and cD to pa! the corresponding annual rent for the said fields in an
amount euivalent to @ of the gross produce of said fields, for the
periods (eginning crop-!ear /@%-@ until said fields shall have (eensurrendered to petitioners, deducting from the amount due petitioners
the sum of #,G%.G advanced (! private respondent *aspar
Jicente.
"O O1E1E.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
41/118
/eria :Chairman;, Alampay, Gutierre, Jr., and 3aras, JJ., concur,
/oo!o"
par. , "tipulation of &acts, 1ecord on Appeal p. 4G,1ollo.
Anne0 ;A;, #etition, p. %, 1ollo.
$ par. 4, "tipulation of &acts, 1ecord on Appeal p. 4$,
1ollo.
G 1ecord on Appeal pp. G4-G/, 1ollo.
@ 1ecord on Appeal, pp. 4@-99, 1ollo.
Anne0 ;A ;, #etition, pp. G-G, 1ollo.
4 #etition, pp. -, 1ollo.
9 #rivate respondent *aspar Jicente died during thependenc! of this appeal. 7e is su(stituted (! the 6udicial
administrator of his estate, 'gnacio Jicente.
/ ones Commentaries on Evidence, Jol @, p. GG/.
% 'card v. Fasigan et. al., 4 #hil. G/.
/4 C..". G9.
&rancisco, Commentaries on the 1evised 1ules of Court,
Jol. J'', pp. $4-$9.
$ ones Commentaries on Evidence, supra, p. G$/4.
G Art. /, Civil Code of the #hilippines.
@ Art. /, '(id.
Fartine+ v. Cavives, @ #hiL @9: Tiu "uico v. 7a(ana.
G@ #hil. 4%4< Asia Ban2ing Corp. v. Lacson Compan!, 'nc.,
G9 #hil. G9.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
42/118
4 p. . 1ollo.
9 p. /, 1ollo.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
43/118
T7'1 'J'"'ON
G.R. No. #306 %' 16, 1992
ENRI)UE RA&ON, petitioner,vs.
INTER%EDIATE APPELLATE COURT '!( :ICENTE 8. CHUIDIAN,! ''y ' A(7!'o o+ " E'" o+ " D""'"(
JUAN T. CHUIDIAN, respondents.
G.R. No. #315 %' 16, 1992
:ICENTE 8. CHUIDIAN, petitioner,vs.
INTER%EDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ENRI)UE RA&0N, '!( E.RA&ON, INC., respondents.
GUTIERRE&, JR., J.:
The main issue in these consolidated petitions centers on the
ownership of ,@%% shares of stoc2 in E. 1a+on, 'nc. covered (!
"toc2 Certificate No. %%$ issued on April $, / and registered
under the name of uan T. Chuidian in the (oo2s of the corporation.
The then Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila, now 1egional Trial Court
of Fanila, declared that Enriue 1a+on, the petitioner in *.1. No.
4G$% is the owner of the said shares of stoc2. The then 'ntermediate
Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial
court8s decision and ruled that uan T. Chuidian, the deceased father
of petitioner Jicente B. Chuidian in *.1. No. 4G$@ is the owner of
the shares of stoc2. Both parties filed separate motions for
reconsideration. Enriue 1a+on wanted the appellate court8s decisionreversed and the trial court8s decision affirmed while Jicente Chuidian
as2ed that all cash and stoc2 dividends and all the pre-emptive rights
accruing to the ,@%% shares of stoc2 (e ordered delivered to him.
The appellate court denied (oth motions. 7ence, these petitions.
The relevant Antecedent facts are as follows:
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
44/118
'n his complaint filed on une /, /4, and amended on
Novem(er , /4, Jicente B. Chuidian pra!ed that
defendants Enriue B. 1a+on, E. 1a+on, 'nc., *eronimo
Jelasco, &rancisco de Bor6a, ose &rancisco, Alfredo B. de
Leon, r., *a(riel Llamas and Luis F. de 1a+on (e ordered
to deliver certificates of stoc2s representing the
shareholdings of the deceased uan T. Chuidian in the E.
1a+on, 'nc. with a pra!er for an order to restrain the
defendants from disposing of the said shares of stoc2, for a
writ of preliminar! attachment v. properties of defendants
having possession of shares of stoc2 and for receivership of
the properties of defendant corporation . . .
000 000 000
'n their answer filed on une 9, /4$, defendants alleged
that all the shares of stoc2 in the name of stoc2holders of
record of the corporation were full! paid for (! defendant,
1a+on< that said shares are su(6ect to the agreement
(etween defendants and incorporators< that the shares of
stoc2 were actuall! owned and remained in the possession
of 1a+on. Appellees also alleged . . . that neither the late
uan T. Chuidian nor the appellant had paid an! amount
whatsoever for the ,@%% shares of stoc2 in uestion . . .
000 000 000
The evidence of the plaintiff shown that he is the
administrator of the intestate estate of uan Telesforo
Chuidian in "pecial #roceedings No. 4%@G, Court of &irst
'nstance of Fanila.
"ometime in /, Enriue 1a+on organi+ed the E. 1a+on,
'nc. for the purpose of (idding for the arrastre services in"outh 7ar(or, Fanila. The incorporators consisted of
Enriue 1a+on, Enriue Jalles, Luisa F. de 1a+on, ose
Tuason, r., Jictor Lim, ose &. Castro and "alvador #ere+
de Tagle.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
45/118
On April $, /, stoc2 certificate No. %%$ for ,@%% shares
of stoc2 of defendant corporation was issued in the name of
uan T. Chuidian.
On the (asis of the ,@%% shares of stoc2, the late uan T.
Chuidian and after him, the plaintiff-appellant, were electedas directors of E. 1a+on, 'nc. Both of them actuall! served
and were paid compensation as directors of E. 1a+on, 'nc.
&rom the time the certificate of stoc2 was issued on April
/ up to April /4, Enriue 1a+on had not uestioned
the ownership (! uan T. Chuidian of the shares of stoc2 in
uestion and had not (rought an! action to have thecertificate of stoc2 over the said shares cancelled.
The certificate of stoc2 was in the possession of defendant
1a+on who refused to deliver said shares to the plaintiff,
until the same was surrendered (! defendant 1a+on and
deposited in a safet! (o0 in #hilippine Ban2 of Commerce.
efendants allege that after organi+ing the E. 1a+on, 'nc.,
Enriue 1a+on distri(uted shares of stoc2 previousl! placed
in the names of the withdrawing nominal incorporators to
some friends including uan T. Chuidian
"toc2 Certificate No. %%$ covering ,@%% shares of stoc2
upon instruction of the late Chuidian on April $, /9 was
personall! delivered (! Chuidian on ul! , / to the
Corporate "ecretar! of Attorne! "ilverio B. de Leon who
was himself an associate of the Chuidian Law Office E0hs.
C D. "ince then, Enriue 1a+on was in possession of
said stoc2 certificate even during the lifetime of the late
Chuidian, from the time the late Chuidian delivered the said
stoc2 certificate to defendant 1a+on until the time sic D ofdefendant 1a+on. B! agreement of the parties sic D
delivered it for deposit with the (an2 under the 6oint custod!
of the parties as confirmed (! the trial court in its order of
August 4, /4.
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
46/118
Thus, the ,@%% shares of stoo2 under "toc2 Certificate No.
%%$ were delivered (! the late Chuidian to Enriue (ecause
it was the latter who paid for all the su(scription on the
shares of stoc2 in the defendant corporation and the
understanding was that he defendant 1a+onD was the
owner of the said shares of stoc2 and was to have
possession thereof until such time as he was paid therefor
(! the other nominal incorporatorsstoc2holders T"N., pp.
G, 9, %, G-@, @-, 9-$, $-$, %, -9, ul! ,
/9%, E0hs. ;C;, ;;, ;$; ;G;D. %o&&o 9 4G$%, pp. -
9D
'n *.1. No. 4G$%, petitioner Enriue 1a+on assails the appellate
court8s decision on its alleged misapplication of the dead man8s
statute rule under "ection %aD 1ule $% of the 1ules of Court.
According to him, the ;dead man8s statute; rule is not applica(le to
the instant case. Foreover, the private respondent, as plaintiff in the
case did not o(6ect to his oral testimon! regarding the oral agreement
(etween him and the deceased uan T. Chuidian that the ownershipof the shares of stoc2 was actuall! vested in the petitioner unless the
deceased opted to pa! the same< and that the petitioner was
su(6ected to a rigid cross e0amination regarding such testimon!.
"ection %aD 1ule $% of the 1ules of Court "ection $ of the
1evised 1ules on EvidenceD "tates:
"ec. %. #is8ualification $y reason of interest or
relationship = The following persons cannot testif! as to
matters in which the! are interested directl! or indirectl!, as
herein enumerated.
aD #arties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in
whose (ehalf a case is prosecuted, a"ainst an e)ecutor
or
administrator
or other representative of a deceased person,
or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
demand a"ainst the estate of such deceased person or
against such person of unsound mind, cannot testif! as to
an! matter of fact accruing (efore the death of such
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
47/118
deceased person or (efore such person (ecame of unsound
mind.; Emphasis suppliedD
000 000 000
The purpose of the rule has (een e0plained (! this Court in this wise:
The reason for the rule is that if persons having a claim
against the estate of the deceased or his properties were
allowed to testif! as to the supposed statements made (!
him deceased personD, man! would (e tempted to falsel!
impute statements to deceased persons as the latter can no
longer den! or refute them, thus un6ustl! su(6ecting theirproperties or rights to false or unscrupulous claims or
demands. The purpose of the law is to ;guard against the
temptation to give false testimon! in regard to the
transaction in uestion on the part of the surviving part!.;
Tongco v. Jian+on, @% #hil. /9< *o Chi *un, et al. v. Co
Cho, et al., >/@@?D
The rule, however, delimits the prohi(ition it contemplates in that it is
applica(le to a case a"ainst
the administrator or its representative of
an estate upon a claim a"ainst the estate of the deceased person.
"ee Tongco v. Jian+on, @% #hil. /9 >/4?D
'n the instant case, the testimon! e0cluded (! the appellate court is
that of the defendant petitioner hereinD to the affect that the late uan
Chuidian, the father of private respondent Jicente Chuidian, the
administrator of the estate of uan ChuidianD and the defendant
agreed in the lifetime of uan Chuidian that the ,@%% shares of stoc2
in E. 1a+on, 'nc. are actuall! owned (! the defendant unless the
deceased uan Chuidian opted to pa! the same which never
happened. The case was filed (! the administrator
of the estate of
the late uan Chuidian to recover shares of stoc2 in E. 1a+on, 'nc.allegedl! owned (! the late uan T. Chuidian.
't is clear, therefore, that the testimon! of the petitioner is not within
the prohi(ition of the rule. The case was not filed a"ainst the
-
8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05
48/118
administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon claims a"ainst the
estate.
&urthermore, the records show that the private respondent never
o(6ected to the testimon! of the petitioner as regards the true nature
of his transaction with the late elder Chuidian. The petitioner8stestimon! was su(6ect to cross-e0amination (! the private
respondent8s counsel. 7ence, g