FERNANDA
CEQUEÑA and RUPERTA LIRIO,
vs. HONORATA MENDOZA BOLANTE,
Facts: The petition involves the parcel of
land situated in Barangay Bangad, Binangonan, Province of Rizal which prior to
1954 was originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of Sinforoso
Mendoza, father of [respondent] and married to Eduarda Apiado. Sinforoso died
in 1930. On the basis of an affidavit, the tax declaration in the name of
Sinforoso Mendoza of the contested lot was cancelled and subsequently declared
in the name of Margarito Mendoza (petitioners’ father). Margarito and Sinforoso
are brothers. [Respondent] is the present occupant of the land. The trial court
decided in favor of petitioners. The CA reversed the trial court because the
genuineness and the due execution of the affidavit allegedly signed by the
respondent and her mother (Eduarda Apiada) had not been sufficiently
established. The CA further ruled that the affidavit was insufficient to
overcome the denial of respondent and her mother because it was a declaration
against interest and Eduarda was not placed in the witness stand. Respondent testified
that his mother, never having attended school, could neither read nor write and
this was corroborated by another witness. Petitioners contended that it was
unnecessary to present a witness (respondent’s mother) to establish the
authenticity of the affidavit because it was a declaration against respondent's
interest and was an ancient document. As a declaration against interest, it was
an exception to the hearsay rule. As a necessary and trustworthy document, it
was admissible in evidence.
Issue:
1. Is the affidavit admissible in evidence?
2.
Is there a necessity
for the witness to be placed on the witness stand despite having made an
affidavit which is a declaration against interest?
3.
What is the dead
man’s statute? Is it applicable in this case? What are its requisites?
4. Who is the lawful owner and possessor
of the disputed parcel of land?
Ruling:
1. No. the affidavit
is not admissible in evidence. Before a private document offered as authentic
can be received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
first.While it is true that the affidavit was signed and subscribed before a
notary public, the general rule is that affidavits are classified as hearsay
evidence, unless affiants are placed on the witness stand. Affidavits are not
considered the best evidence, if affiants are available as witnesses. The
notary public or others who saw that the document was signed or at least could
confirm its recitals were not presented. There was no expert testimony or
competent witness who attested to the genuineness of the questioned signatures.
Worse, [respondent] denied the genuineness of her signature and that of her
mother . . . [Respondent] testified that her mother was an illiterate and as
far as she knew her mother could not write because she had not attended school
and this fact was corroborated by another witness.
2.
Yes. In this case,
one of the affiants happens to be the respondent, who is still alive and who
testified that the signature in the affidavit was not hers. A declaration
against interest is not admissible if the declarant is available to testify as
a witness. Such declarant should be confronted with the statement against
interest as a prior inconsistent statement.
3.
The dead man’s
statute is Section
38. Declaration against interest. — The declaration made by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the
fact is asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary
to 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 successors in interest and against third
persons.
The dead man’s statute is not
applicable. The requisites are: the offeror must show (a) that the declarant is
dead, insane or unable to testify; (b) that the declaration concerns a fact
cognizable by the declarant; (c) that at the time the declaration was made, he
was aware that the same was contrary to his interest; and (d) that
circumstances render improbable the existence of any motive to falsify and
believed such declaration to be true. in this case one of the affiant is the
respondent who is still alive and testified that the affidavit was not hers.
4.
The respondent is the
preferred possessor because, benefiting from her father's tax declaration of
the subject lot since 1926, she has been in possession thereof for a longer
period. On the other hand, petitioners' father acquired joint possession only
in 1952. Respondent's possession was not disturbed until 1953 when the
petitioners' father claimed the land. But by then, her possession, which was in
the concept of owner — public, peaceful, and uninterrupted — had already
ripened into ownership. Furthermore she herself, after her father's demise,
declared and paid realty taxes for the disputed land. Tax receipts and
declarations of ownership for taxation, when coupled with proof of actual
possession of the property, can be the basis of a claim for ownership through
prescription.
By: Alvin G. Bontuyan
No comments:
Post a Comment