OFFER OF EVIDENCE PAREL v. PRUDENCIO
Assessor’s assessment of the property all in respondent’s name since tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership.
Petition for review on certiorari FACTS: On Feb. Feb. 27, 27, 1992 1992,, Sim Simeon eon Prud Pruden enci cio o file filed d a compla complaint int for recove recovery ry of posse possessi ssion on and and damage damages s against Danilo Parel with the RTC Baguio. Prudencio is claiming that he is the owner of a twostorey residential house located at No. 61 Forbes Park National Reservation near Department of Public Service (DPS) compound, Baguio City He also claims claims that the house was construct constructed ed in 1972-1975 from his own funds and declared in his name in a tax declaration and that he has been paying the taxes on it ever since
In 1973, when the 2 nd floor of the house was already habitable, habitable, he allowed allowed Parel’s parents to live there and supervise the construction below. When the house was finished, the Parel family was allowed to live there since they have no house of their own. Pare Parel’ l’s s dad, dad, Flor Floren enti tino no,, now dece deceas ased ed,, was was Prudencio’s wife’s younger brother. In November November 1985, Prudencio Prudencio wrote wrote Florentino Florentino a notice for them to vacate the said house as the former was due for retirement and he needed the place. Danilo’s parents heeded this when they migrated to US in 1986, however, Danilo and his family unlawfully entered and took possession of the ground floor of the house; and refused to leave despite many demands So Prud Pruden enci cio o file filed d an acti action on for for reco recove very ry of posses possessio sion, n, and also asked asked from from Parel Parel for a monthl monthly y rental (3k) from April 1988 until he leaves the premises, plus moral and exemplary damages and costs.
Parel filed his Answer with Counterclaim alleging that his parents are co-owners of the house (ground floor to Parel, 2nd floor to Prudencio), and that his parents spent their own resources in improving the house and that the construction workers were hired by Florentino, and that Floren Florentin tino o was was an award awardee ee of the land on which which the house stands. He also claims that Prudenci Prudencio o had filed ejectmen ejectmentt case as well as criminal cases against them involving the subject house, which were all dismissed. Parel asked for the dismissal of the complaint and prayed for damages and attorney’s fees. RTC declared that the house is co-owned by Parel and Prudencio, so Prudencio cannot evict Parel. Parel was also ordered to pay moral and actual damages, atty.’s fees, and costs. RTC RTC conc conclu lude ded d that that the the land land was was allo alloca cate ted d to Florentino as part of a program of the former mayor of Baguio (Lardizabal) to allow lowly-paid gov’t workers to constr construct uct their their own house houses s on the the reserv reservati ation; on; that that Prudencio failed to show proof of any contract, written or oral, express or implied, that the late Florentino and his family stayed on the house not as co-owners but as mere lessees, nor any other proof that would clearly establish his sole owner ownershi ship p of the house; house; and, and, that that the the late late Florentino was the one who gathered the laborers for the construction of the house and paid their salaries. Thus, the the RTC RTC rule ruled d that that co-o co-own wner ersh ship ip exis existe ted d betw betwee een n respondent and petitioner’s father, Florentino. From From this this,, RTC RTC conc conclu lude ded d that that Flor Floren enti tino no and and Pruden Prudencio cio had an agree agreeme ment nt that that Floren Florentin tino o would would contri contribut bute e money money for the the const construc ructio tion n and once once the house is completed, hati sila. RTC also question questioned ed that Prudencio Prudencio only claimed sole-ownership after 15 years. RTC did not give credence to the tax declaration as well well as the the seve severa rall docu docume ment nts s show showin ing g the the City City
It rejected the affidavit executed by Florentino declaring the house as owned by respondent saying that the affidavit should be read in its entirety to determine the purpose of its execution; that it was execute executed d because because of an adviseme advisement nt addresse addressed d to the late Florentino by the City Treasurer concerning the the prop propert erty’s y’s tax assess assessme ment nt and and Floren Florentin tino, o, thought then that it should be the respondent who should pay the taxes; and that the affidavit cannot be accepted for being hearsay. hearsay . From this decision, Prudencio Prudencio appealed, appealed, decision reversed by CA, declaring him the sole owner. The CA found as meritorious respondent’s contention contention that since petitioner failed to formally offer in evidence any documentary evidence, there is nothing to refute the evidence offered by respondent. It ruled that the TC’s TC’s statemen statementt that defendants defendants’ ’ occupancy of the house is due to a SPA executed by his parents is wanting of any concrete evidence on record; that said power of attorney was never offered, hence, could could not be referr referred ed to as petiti petitione oner’s r’s evide evidence nce to support his claim; that except for the bare testimonies of Candelari Candelario o Regua, Regua, the carpente carpenter-for r-foreman eman,, that that it was Floren Florentin tino o who const construc ructed ted the house house and Corazo Corazon n Garcia, the former barangay captain, who testified that the lot was allocated to petitioner’s father, there was no supportin supporting g document document which which would would sufficien sufficiently tly establish establish factual bases for the trial court’s conclusion; and that the rule on offer of evidence is mandatory.
The CA found the affidavit dated Sep. 24, 1973 of Florentino, petitioner’s father, stating that he is not the owner of the subject house but respondent, respondent, as conclusive proof of respondent’s sole ownership of the subject house as it is a declaration made by Florentino Florentino against his interest. It also gave weight to Prudencio’s tax declarations as sufficient to establish his case which constitute at least proo prooff that that the the hold holder er has has a clai claim m of titl title e over over the the property. Parel filed an MFR, denied.
ISSUES: 1. WON WON Pare Parell was was able able to prov prove e by prepo prepond nder eran ance ce of evidence that his father was a co-owner of the house. NO. 2. WON it was necessary to formally offer Parel’s documentary evidence. YES. 3. WON Florentino’s affidavit should be given weight as conclusive proof of Prudencio’s sole ownership. YES. ISSUE 3 muna: Petitione Petitionerr argues argues that the CA erred erred in finding finding the affidavit affidavit of petitione petitioner’s r’s father father declaring declaring responden respondentt as owner owner of the the subje subject ct house house as conclu conclusiv sive e proof proof that that respondent is the true and only owner of the house since the affidavit should be read in its entirety to determine the purpose for which it was executed. Prudencio had shown sufficient evidence to support his complaint for recovery of possession of the ground floor of the subject house as the exclusive owner thereof. He presented presented the affidavit affidavit dated Septembe Septemberr 24, 1973 executed by Florentino and sworn to before the Assistant City Assessor of Baguio City, G.F. Lagasca, which reads:
I, FLOREN FLORENTIN TINO O PAREL PAREL,, 42 years years of age, age, emplo employe yee, e, and residing at Forbes Park, Reservation No. 1, after having been sworn to according to law depose and say:
That he is the occupant of a residential building located at Forbe Forbes s Park, Park, Reserv Reservati ation on No. 1, Baguio Baguio City City which which is the the subject of an advicement addressed to him emanating from the Office of the City Assessor, Baguio City, for assessment and declaration for taxation purposes; That I am not the owner of the building in question; That That the the buildi building ng in questi question on is owned owned by Mr. Simeon Simeon B. Prudencio Prudencio who is presently presently residing at 55 Hyacinth Hyacinth,, Roxas District, Quezon City.
case, case, once plaintiff plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, favor, the the duty duty or the the burde burden n of eviden evidence ce shift shifts s to defendan defendantt to controver controvertt plaintiff' plaintiff's s prima prima facie facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proo prooff must must prod produc uce e a prep prepon onde dera ranc nce e of evid eviden ence ce thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own eviden evidence ce and and not upon the weakn weakness ess of the the defendant’s. The concept of “preponderance of evidence” refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.
Further, affiant say not. ISSUE 2: Section 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 38. Declaration Declaration against interest. – The declaration declaration made made by a pers person on dece deceas ased ed,, or unab unable le to test testif ify, y, agai agains nstt the the inte intere rest st of the the decl declar aran ant, t, if the the fact fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his successorsin-interest and against third persons. The theory theory under under which which declarat declarations ions against against interest are received in evidence notwithstanding they they are are hear hearsa say y is that that the the nece necess ssit ity y of the the occasion occasion renders renders the receptio reception n of such evidence evidence advisabl advisable e and, further further that the reliabilit reliability y of such declaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary or moral interest. Based on the affidavit, it is safe to presume that he would not have made such declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it is prejudicial to himself as well as to his children’s interests as his heirs. A decl declar arat atio ion n agai agains nstt inte intere rest st is the the best best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.
There There is also no evidence evidence that Florentino Florentino revoked such such affida affidavit vit,, even even when when the the crimin criminal al compla complaint int for trespass to dwelling was filed by Prudencio, although this was was dismis dismisse sed d becau because se of absenc absence e of evide evidence nce that that Florentino entered the house against Prudencio’s will and that and action for ejectment should be his remedy; and even when a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against petitioner and his wife also in 1988 which was subsequently dismissed on the ground that respondent’s action should be an accion publiciana which is beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC. The building plan of the house was in the name of Prud Pruden enci cio o and and his his wife wife and and the the hous house e was was buil builtt in accordance to said plan. Prud Pruden enci cio o was was the the one one payi paying ng the the real real esta estate te property taxes on the house under his name since 1974, and the Parels did not pay this any time in their name. While tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. But in this case, the taxes, taken with the other circumstances, SC concludes that Prudencio is the sole owner of the house.
ISSUE 1: Since Since Prudencio Prudencio has establish established ed his claim of sole ownership, the burden of disproving so was shifted to Parel. So he has to prove that Florentio was a co-owner of the housel.
In Jison v. Court of Appeals, Appeals, the SC said that: “he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil
Parel cited Bravo vs. Borja to support his claim that the rule that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered is not absolute, and that his evidence, though not formally offered were marked as exhibits in the presentation of testimonies of petitioner’s witnesse witnesses, s, and were part of the testimonie testimonies, s, and also that that the evidence evidence were were part part of a memora memorandu ndum m filed filed before the court. Parel also insists that even without the documentary evidence, his testimony as well as that of his witnesses substantiated substantiated his claim. Parel’s counsel asked that he be allowed to offer his documentary evidence in writing, he, however, did not file file the the same same.. Thus Thus,, the the CA did did not not cons consid ider er the the documentary evidence presented by petitioner. Sect Sectio ion n 34 of Rule Rule 132 132 of the the Rule Rules s of Cour Courtt provides: Section 34. Offer of evidence. evidence. – The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purp purpos ose e for for whic which h the the evide evidenc nce e is offe offere red d must must be specified.
A formal offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit. It is a settled rule that the mere fact that a partic particula ularr docume document nt is identi identifie fied d and marked marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party
Parel cannot rely on the Bravo case because there, the court allowed evidence on minority by admitting the certified true copy of the birth certificate attached to a motio motion n for bail even even if it was was not formall formally y offere offered d in evidence, because it was properly filed in support of a motion motion for bail to prove petition petitioner’s er’s minority which was never never challe challenge nged d by the prosec prosecut ution ion and it alread already y formed part of the records of the case. The rule referred to in the Bravo case was Section 7 of Rule Rule 133 133 of the the Rule Rules s of Cour Courtt whic which h prov provid ides es:: “Section 7. Evidence on motion.motion. - When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record, the court may hear the matte matterr on affida affidavit vits s or deposi depositio tions ns presen presented ted by the the respe respecti ctive ve partie parties, s, but the the court court may may direct direct that that the the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.” Not Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which is the one applicable to the present case. Even Even if the docu docume ment ntar ary y evid eviden ence ce woul would d be considered, the evidence showing that the cases filed by Prudencio were dismissed, and the SPA of Parel’s parents did not establish co-ownership. The construction worker’s testimony that Florentino was the one who hired him, and the barangay captain’s allegation that he was allocated a lot does not overcome Florentino’s own affidavit naming Prudencio as owner of the house. The The fact fact that that not not one one of the the witne itness sses es saw saw responde respondent nt during during the construction construction of the said house house does not establish that petitioner’s father and respondent
co-owned the house. DISPOSITIVE DISPOSITIVE PORTION: PORTION: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2000 and its Resolutio Resolution n dated November 28, 2000 are AFFIRMED.
