The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the trial court and appellate court that voided a deed of absolute sale between a petitioner and her grandmother. Both lower courts based their decisions primarily on the grandmother's sworn statement, given after her death, that the actual intention was not to dispose of the property but to provide collateral. The Supreme Court held that this was an error, as affidavits are considered hearsay evidence and the adverse party was deprived of cross-examining the affiant. As the grandmother was deceased, the lower courts should not have given probative weight to her sworn statement for purposes of proving the sale was simulated.
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the trial court and appellate court that voided a deed of absolute sale between a petitioner and her grandmother. Both lower courts based their decisions primarily on the grandmother's sworn statement, given after her death, that the actual intention was not to dispose of the property but to provide collateral. The Supreme Court held that this was an error, as affidavits are considered hearsay evidence and the adverse party was deprived of cross-examining the affiant. As the grandmother was deceased, the lower courts should not have given probative weight to her sworn statement for purposes of proving the sale was simulated.
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the trial court and appellate court that voided a deed of absolute sale between a petitioner and her grandmother. Both lower courts based their decisions primarily on the grandmother's sworn statement, given after her death, that the actual intention was not to dispose of the property but to provide collateral. The Supreme Court held that this was an error, as affidavits are considered hearsay evidence and the adverse party was deprived of cross-examining the affiant. As the grandmother was deceased, the lower courts should not have given probative weight to her sworn statement for purposes of proving the sale was simulated.
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the trial court and appellate court that voided a deed of absolute sale between a petitioner and her grandmother. Both lower courts based their decisions primarily on the grandmother's sworn statement, given after her death, that the actual intention was not to dispose of the property but to provide collateral. The Supreme Court held that this was an error, as affidavits are considered hearsay evidence and the adverse party was deprived of cross-examining the affiant. As the grandmother was deceased, the lower courts should not have given probative weight to her sworn statement for purposes of proving the sale was simulated.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
A18.
Tating v Marcella 519 SCRA 79
FACTS: Petitioner assails the decision of the CA affirming the decision of the RTC voiding the deed of absolute sale between petitioner and her grandmother and cancelling the transfer of title which was rendered in her name. Petitioner contends that the case for the private respondents’ rests on the proposition that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 14, 1969 is simulated because Daniela’s actual intention was not to dispose of her property but simply to help petitioner by providing her with a collateral. Petitioner asserts that the sole evidence which persuaded both the RTC and the CA in holding that the subject deed was simulated was the Sworn Statement of Daniela dated December 28, 1977. However, petitioner argues that said Sworn Statement should have been rejected outright by the lower courts considering that Daniela has long been dead when the document was offered in evidence, thereby denying petitioner the right to cross- examine her. ISSUE: Whether or not the both the trial court and the CA committed error in giving the sworn statement of a dead person probative weight. HELD: Yes. There is no issue in the admissibility of the subject sworn statement. However, the admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence. It is settled that affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant’s statements, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross- examine the affiant. For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon. The Court finds that both the trial court and the CA committed error in giving the sworn statement probative weight. Since Daniela is no longer available to take the witness stand as she is already dead, the RTC and the CA should not have given probative value on Daniela’s sworn statement for purposes of proving that the contract of sale between her and petitioner was simulated and that, as a consequence, a trust relationship was created between them.