Tan, Jr. vs.

Hosana
G.R. No. 190846, Feb 3, 2016
In Tan, Jr. v. Hosana, the Supreme Court affirms the ruling that the
deed of sale is null and void, but orders Jose to reimburse Tomas
P200,000.00 based on the purchase price indicated in the deed of
sale.
FACTS:
• Respondent Jose G. Hosana and his wife, Milagros C. Hosana,
bought a house and lot in Naga City, Philippines during their
marriage.
• Milagros sold the property to petitioner Tomas P. Tan, Jr. without
Jose's consent and knowledge.
• The sale was evidenced by a deed of sale executed by Milagros
as the attorney-in-fact of Jose.
• After the sale, the title of the property was transferred to Tomas.
• Jose filed a complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of title,
reconveyance, and damages against Milagros, Tomas, and the
Register of Deeds of Naga City.
• Jose alleged that Milagros conspired with Tomas to forge his
signature on the special power of attorney authorizing the sale.
• Tomas claimed to be a buyer in good faith and sought
reimbursement for the purchase price he paid.

ISSUE:
• W/N the deed of sale can be used as the basis for the amount of
consideration paid.
• W/N Tomas' testimony is sufficient to establish the actual
purchase price of the sale.
HELD:
• YES. The Court explained that while a void contract has no
force and effect, it can still be admitted as evidence to prove
matters that occurred in the execution of the contract.

• The consideration stated in the deed of sale was deemed prima

facie evidence of the amount paid by Tomas.

• Tomas failed to rebut or contradict this evidence.

• Therefore, the Court affirmed the CA's order for Jose to

reimburse Tomas the amount of P200,000.00 based on the
consideration stated in the deed of sale.

• The consideration stated in the deed of sale is prima facie

evidence of the amount paid by Tomas for the property.

• The deed of sale was declared null and void due to the lack of
Jose's consent, but it can still be used as evidence to determine
the actual amount paid by Tomas.

• Tomas failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that he paid

P700,000.00 instead of the stated amount of P200,000.00.

• Therefore, the consideration stated in the deed of sale remains

sufficient evidence of the actual amount paid and should be
returned to Tomas under the principle of unjust enrichment.

• The prevention of unjust enrichment is a recognized public

policy, and Jose is required to return what he or Milagros
received under the void contract.
Miro vs. Vda. de Erederos
G.R. No. 172532 & 172544-45, Nov 20, 2013
Officials accused of selling confirmation certificates for motor vehicle
registration are cleared of administrative charges due to lack of
substantial evidence, as the complainants' affidavits were deemed
hearsay and did not meet the required standard of proof.
FACTS:
• Respondents Marilyn Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, Catalina
Alingasa, and Porferio I. Mendoza, officials in the LTO Cebu,
were accused of selling confirmation certificates for motor
vehicle registration.
• Complainants alleged that Alingasa sold the certificates for
P2,500 per pad without an official receipt and remitted the
collections to Erederos, who then remitted them to Mendoza.
• Complainants also claimed that the confirmation certificates
processed during the previous administration were no longer
honored, forcing them to purchase new ones.
ISSUE:
• W/N the Court of Appeals (CA) committed a reversible error in
dismissing the administrative charge against the respondents.
RULING:
• The CA did not commit any error in setting aside the findings of
the Deputy Ombudsman due to lack of substantial evidence.
• The administrative charges against the respondents were
dismissed.
RATIO:

• The findings of fact by the Deputy Ombudsman are generally

accorded great weight and respect, but they are not absolute.
• The CA found that the affidavits of the complainants were
hearsay and lacked corroboration, which the Court agreed with.
• Substantial evidence is required to hold the respondents
administratively liable, and the affidavits and NBI/Progress
report presented by the complainants did not meet this standard.
• In a petition for review on certiorari, the Court's function is not to
re-examine factual findings. However, conflicting findings of fact
between the Deputy Ombudsman and the CA warranted a review.
• The complainants' affidavits were hearsay because they did not
have personal knowledge of the alleged misconduct. They did not
specifically allege that the respondents personally received the
collected payments.
• The NBI/Progress report was also hearsay as it was based on the
complainants' affidavits.
• The elements of grave misconduct were not proven.
• The Court affirmed the decision of the CA, dismissing the
administrative charges against the respondents due to lack of
substantial evidence.
People vs. Marti
G.R. No. 81561, Jan 18, 1991
Defendant Andre Marti is convicted of violating the Dangerous Drugs
Act after packages he attempted to ship containing marijuana are
found and seized by a private individual, leading to a Supreme Court
ruling that the evidence is admissible in court despite the defendant's
claim of violation of his constitutional rights.
FACTS:

• Defendant Andre Marti was convicted of violating the

Dangerous Drugs Act for attempting to ship packages
containing marijuana.
• Marti claimed that he was only doing a favor for a stranger he
met in a pub.
• On August 14, 1987, Marti and his common-law wife went to
the booth of "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" to send
four gift-wrapped packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland.
• The proprietor of the booth, Anita Reyes, asked to inspect the
packages, but Marti refused and assured her that they only
contained books, cigars, and gloves.
• The packages were placed in a box and sealed.
• Before delivery to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of
Posts, the proprietor's husband, Job Reyes, opened the box for
final inspection and discovered a peculiar odor.
• He found dried marijuana leaves inside the packages and
reported it to the NBI (National Bureau of Investigation).
• The NBI agents went to the Reyes' office, where Job Reyes
opened the packages in their presence and found more dried
marijuana leaves.
• The NBI agents took custody of the packages and conducted a
laboratory examination, confirming that they contained
marijuana.
ISSUE:
• W/N the evidence obtained through the search and seizure of
the packages is admissible in court, considering the defendant's
claim of violation of his constitutional rights against
unreasonable search and seizure.
RULING:
• The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained through
the search and seizure of the packages is admissible in court.
RATIO:
• The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and
seizure applies to actions of the government and its agents, not
private individuals. The protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by
private individuals, such as the proprietor of the forwarding
agency in this case.
• The mere presence of NBI agents during the search did not
convert it into a warrantless search and seizure, as the search
was initiated by the private individual and not the law
enforcers.
• The exclusionary rule, which prohibits the admissibility of
evidence obtained in violation of constitutional safeguards,
applies to evidence obtained by the government or its agents,
not evidence obtained by private individuals.
• The defendant's claim that he was not the owner of the
packages and was only doing a favor for a stranger was deemed
incredulous and self-serving. Denials, if unsubstantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, are given no weight in law.
• The defendant's previous conviction for possession of hashish
in Germany and the connection between the consignee of the
packages and drug abuse further weakened his credibility.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Looyuko
G.R. No. 170966, Jun 22, 2016
A dispute over the delivery of raw sugar between the Republic of the
Philippines and two individuals leads to findings of undue delay,
weight discrepancy, and diversion, resulting in the awarding of
temperate damages to both parties.
FACTS:

• The case involves a dispute between the Republic of the

Philippines, represented by the Department of Agriculture, and
two individuals, Alberto Looyuko and Wilson T. Go, over the
delivery of raw sugar.
• In 1985, former President Fidel V. Ramos authorized the
emergency importation of 100,000 metric tons of raw sugar
from Thailand and Guatemala due to the sugar crisis.
• The National Sugar Refineries Corporation (NASUREFCO),
under the Department of Agriculture, was tasked with handling
the importation.
• Three refineries were given allocations to process and refine
the raw sugar, including Noah's Ark, which was allocated
5,400 metric tons.
• NASUREFCO contracted the services of MARUBENI to
source the raw sugar and handle the shipment and delivery to
each of the refineries.
• The delivery of Noah's Ark's allocation of raw sugar was never
completed.
• The Republic blamed the respondents for the non-delivery,
alleging a weight discrepancy and a defective weighing scale.
• The respondents claimed that they made repeated requests for
faster delivery but were not accommodated.
• The respondents also accused the Republic of diverting their
allocation to another refinery.

ISSUE:
• W/N the court of appeals erred in awarding damages to
respondents.
• W/N there is evidence of diversion of the raw sugar allocation
intended for Noah's Ark to other refineries.

RULING:
• The court found that the raw sugar delivered had a lower
polarity rate than claimed by the Republic and that the total
raw sugar delivered was less than the stipulated amount.
• The court further found that the storage of the raw sugar in a
different warehouse while awaiting recalibration of the
weighing scale was an unwarranted diversion.
RATIO:
• Respondents herein prayed in their Answer with Counterclaim
that they be awarded the sum of P52,000,000.00 as damages
for lost and unrealized income and business opportunities from
other clients and customers which they did not accommodate
on account of their Refining Contract with petitioner. They,
however, failed to present any proof whether testimonial or
documentary of their alleged losses. In the same way,
petitioner merely gave an estimate of the value of the bags of
refined sugar in the possession of respondents but likewise did
not offer any testimonial or documentary evidence in support
of the alleged value.
• Both parties, therefore, failed to present any persuasive proof
that they are entitled to the damages awarded by the trial court.
Their claim for damages remained unsubstantiated and
unproven. Well-settled it is that actual or compensatory
damages must be duly proved with a reasonable degree of
certainty. It is a fundamental principle of the law on damages
that, while one injured by a breach of contract shall be awarded
fair and just compensation commensurate with the loss
sustained because of the defendant's acts or omission, a party
is entitled only to such compensation for the pecuniary loss
that he has duly proven.
• Actual damages cannot be presumed and cannot be based on
flimsy, remote, speculative, and non-substantial proof. Neither
petitioner nor respondent is thus entitled to actual or
compensatory damages in this case. It is significant to note that
the Refining Contract between petitioner and respondent did
not state the amount of the contract which may be a basis for
an award of actual damages.
Spouses Latip vs. Chua
G.R. No. 177809, Oct 16, 2009
The Supreme Court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and
holds the Spouses Latip liable for unpaid rentals on the leased
cubicles, deducting the amount of P2,570,000.00 already received as
advance rentals.
FACTS:
• Spouses Omar and Moshiera Latip were the lessees of two
cubicles in a commercial building owned by Rosalie Chua.
• The lease contract stated that the monthly rental for the
cubicles was P60,000.00, with a yearly increase of 10%.
• The contract also included provisions regarding the payment
of arrears, subletting, and the condition of the cubicles.
• After a year of occupying the cubicles, Rosalie sent a letter
demanding payment of back rentals to the Spouses Latip.
• When they failed to comply, Rosalie filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer plus damages against them.
• The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of
Rosalie, ordering the Spouses Latip to vacate the property and
pay rent arrearages, monthly rentals, attorney's fees, and costs
of the suit.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC's decision,
ruling that the lease contract was incomplete and not notarized.
• The RTC also found that the Spouses Latip had already fully
paid the lease rentals.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) later reversed the RTC's decision
and reinstated the MeTC's ruling.

ISSUE:
• W/N the Spouses Latip should be ejected from the leased
cubicles.
RULING:
• The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the
decision of the Court of Appeals.
• The Spouses Latip were held liable for unpaid rentals, minus
the amount of P2,570,000.00 already received by Rosalie as
advance rentals.
RATIO:
• The Court of Appeals (CA) took judicial notice of the alleged
practice of paying goodwill money to the lessor in the Baclaran
area.
• However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the alleged
practice did not meet the requisite of notoriety and that Rosalie
failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim.
• The Supreme Court held that the lease contract and the receipts
for the amount of P2,570,000.00 should be considered as
advanced rentals on the leased cubicles.
• The court found that there was no evidence to support the
claim that the amount was payment for goodwill money.
• The Spouses Latip were held liable for unpaid rentals on the
lease, but the amount of P2,570,000.00 should be deducted
from their liability.
Arreza vs. Toyo
G.R. No. 213198, Jul 1, 2019
A Filipino citizen seeks judicial recognition of a foreign divorce in
order to remarry, but is denied by the Regional Trial Court due to lack
of authenticated documents, leading to an appeal to the Supreme
Court for resolution of factual issues.
FACTS:
• Genevieve Rosal Arreza, a Filipino citizen, and Tetsushi Toyo,
a Japanese citizen, were married in Quezon City in 1991.
• After 19 years of marriage, they filed a Notification of Divorce
by Agreement in 2011.
• The Notification of Divorce was received by the Mayor of
Konohana-ku, Osaka City, Japan.
• Genevieve filed a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign
divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry before the
Regional Trial Court.
• She submitted various documents to support her petition,
including a copy of their Divorce Certificate, Tetsushi's Family
Register, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Notification of
Divorce, and an English translation of the Civil Code of Japan.
• The Regional Trial Court denied Genevieve's petition, stating
that she failed to prove the copy of Japan's law as the submitted
documents were not duly authenticated.
ISSUE:
• W/N the Regional Trial Court erred in denying Genevieve's
petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and
declaration of capacity to remarry.
RULING:
• The Supreme Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals
for further proceedings to determine and resolve the pertinent
factual issues.
• The Court emphasized that questions of fact, such as the
validity of the divorce decree and the existence of Japan's law
on divorce, are not within its ambit to resolve.
• The procedural restrictions of a Rule 45 petition, which only
entertains questions of law, do not apply in this case due to the
substantial ends of justice.

RATIO:
• In actions involving the recognition of a foreign divorce
judgment, the petitioner must prove not only the foreign
judgment granting the divorce but also the alien spouse's
national law.
• Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign
judgments and laws.
• The proof of the foreign divorce decree and the foreign
spouse's national law can be established by complying with the
requirements under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules
of Court.
• The Regional Trial Court found that Genevieve's submitted
documents for the divorce decree complied with the
requirements, but the copy of the Japan Civil Code and its
English translation were insufficient as they were not duly
authenticated.
• The English translation cannot be considered as an official
publication or a learned treatise without proper authentication
and proof of the translator's and advisors' qualifications.
• The Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals to
determine and resolve the factual issues involved.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 119288, Aug 18, 1997
The Supreme Court remands a case to the trial court to determine the
specific area of a disputed lot and resolve conflicting claims, after the
government fails to present evidence to support their appeal against
the adjudication of the lot to the private respondent.
FACTS:
• Private respondent Josefa Gacot claimed ownership of Lot
5367 located in Barangay Los Angeles, Magsaysay, Palawan.
• The Regional Trial Court of Palawan adjudicated the lot to
Gacot, finding that her occupation of the lot for 38 years,
which was open and notorious, qualified her as the rightful
owner.
• The government did not object to Gacot's claim during the
hearings.
• During the proceedings, it was discovered that a previous
decision by Judge Lorenzo Garlitos in 1950 declared Lot
5367 as property of the Republic of the Philippines.
• The Republic appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
ISSUE:
• W/N the Court of Appeals err in ruling that there was no basis
for the Republic to invoke its claim over the lot.
RULING:
• During the proceedings, it was discovered that a previous
decision by Judge Lorenzo Garlitos in 1950 declared Lot
5367 as property of the Republic of the Philippines.
RATIO:
• The Republic argued that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case due to procedural errors. The Court
of Appeals granted the Republic's motion to reopen the case
and remanded it to the trial court to allow the Republic to
present a previous decision declaring Lot 5367 as government
property.
• However, during the rehearing, the government failed to
present the said order as evidence. The trial court then
rendered a decision upholding Gacot's claim.
• The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of
adhering to procedural rules but emphasized that technical
rules should be construed liberally to serve the cause of
substantial justice.
• The Court also noted that courts are authorized to take
judicial notice of their own acts and records in the same case.
• However, the Supreme Court found that the area of Lot 5367
claimed and awarded to Gacot had not been specified in the
records.
• Therefore, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings to determine the specific area of the
disputed lot and to resolve the conflicting claims of the
parties.
Degayo vs. Magbanua-Dinglasan
G.R. No. 173148, Apr 6, 2015
A property dispute over a riverbed in the Philippines leads to
conflicting claims between Elsa Degayo and the Magbanua family,
resulting in the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Magbanuas,
declaring the disputed property as an abandoned riverbed.
FACTS:
• The case involves a property dispute over a riverbed in the
Philippines between Elsa Degayo and the Magbanua family.
• The disputed property is a parcel of land located on the
northeastern bank of Jalaud River.
• Degayo claims that the disputed area is an accretion to Lot No.
861, which she inherited from her deceased parents.
• The Magbanua family argues that the disputed property is an
abandoned riverbed and should rightfully belong to them.
• The Jalaud River changed its course in the 1970s, encroaching
on the Magbanua's land and leaving the old riverbed dry.
• Two civil cases were filed, one by the Magbanua family
against the tenants of Lot No. 861, and another by Degayo
against the Magbanua family for ownership of the disputed
land.
ISSUE:
• W/N the disputed property is an accretion to Lot No. 861 or an
abandoned riverbed.
RULING:
• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Magbanua family,
declaring the disputed property as an abandoned riverbed and
therefore belonging to them.
• The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata, stating that the
decision in a previous civil case (Civil Case No. 16047)
between the Magbanua family and the tenants of Lot No. 861
constitutes res judicata and is binding on Degayo.
• The Court found that there is an identity of parties and issues
between Civil Case No. 16047 and the present case.
• The Court also held that the Court of Appeals (CA) properly
took judicial notice of the previous case.
• Therefore, the Court denied Degayo's petition for lack of merit.
RATIO:
• The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata, which means
that a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent
jurisdiction should not be litigated again.
• The Court emphasized the importance of finality of judgments
and the conservation of judicial resources.
• The Court found that the decision in Civil Case No. 16047,
which declared the disputed property as an abandoned
riverbed, constitutes res judicata and is binding on Degayo.
• The Court also held that the CA properly took judicial notice
of the previous case, as Degayo herself repeatedly referred to
it in her pleadings.
• Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the Magbanua family
and declared the disputed property as an abandoned riverbed
belonging to them.
Vergara vs. People
G.R. No. 128720, Jan 23, 2002
A soldier is convicted of robbery based on the positive identification
made by a witness, despite his defense of alibi, leading to his
conviction.
FACTS:
• S/Sgt. Elmer Vergara was convicted of robbery based on the
positive identification made by Catherine Manalo.
• The incident occurred on October 19, 1990, involving the
payroll money of J & E Manalo Construction Co., Inc.
amounting to P89,000.
• Vergara, along with his co-accused, C1C Nicolas Custodio and
Leonido Losanes, were charged with robbery in band.
• Custodio and Losanes managed to escape police custody,
leaving Vergara as the only one to face the charges.
ISSUE:
• W/N the positive identification made by Catherine Manalo
overrides Vergara's defense of alibi.
RULING:
• The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Vergara for
robbery.
RATIO:

• The court held that the positive identification made by

Catherine Manalo overrides Vergara's defense of alibi.
• Alibi is considered a weak defense, and it becomes even
weaker in the face of positive identification.
• An alibi cannot prevail over the testimony of a credible
witness who has no motive to testify falsely.
• Discrepancies in the witness's description of the accused are
not decisive, as visual estimates cannot be expected to be
perfect.
• What is important is that the witness positively and
categorically identified Vergara as one of the robbers, both
during the police line-up and in open court.
• The court also took judicial notice of the travel time by car
from San Pedro, Laguna to Pasig City, Metro Manila, stating
that it was not impossible for Vergara to be at the scene of the
crime despite his alibi.
People vs. Mejares y Valencia
G.R. No. 225735, Jan 10, 2018
Accused-appellant Belen Mejares is convicted of qualified theft, but
the Supreme Court modifies her penalty due to a recent law
adjustment, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the precise
values of the stolen items.
FACTS:
• Accused-appellant Belen Mejares y Valencia was charged with
qualified theft of cash and jewelry amounting to P1,556,308.00.
• Mejares was a domestic servant of complainant Jacqueline
Suzanne Gavino y Aquino.
• The prosecution presented five witnesses, including a household
helper, the complainant, the driver, a security guard, and an
investigating officer.
• Mejares denied the charge and claimed that she was a victim of
the dugo-dugo gang.
ISSUE:
• W/N accused-appellant Belen Mejares y Valencia is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft.
RULING:
• The court affirmed with modification the conviction of accused-
appellant Belen Mejares y Valencia for the crime of qualified
theft.
• The court found no reversible error in the ruling that she was
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
• However, the court modified the penalty initially imposed upon
her due to a recent law adjustment.
• The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the precise
values of the stolen items.
RATIO:
• Theft is consummated when three elements concur: the actual act
of taking without the use of violence, intimidation, or force upon
persons or things; intent to gain on the part of the taker; and the
absence of the owner's consent.

• For qualified theft to be committed, additional elements must

concur, including the taking of personal property, that the
property belongs to another, that the taking is done with intent to
gain, that it is done without the owner's consent, that it is
accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation, and that
it is done with grave abuse of confidence.
• The court rejected Mejares' claim that she only followed
instructions from her employer, emphasizing that intent to gain is
presumed from the unlawful taking of the stolen items.
• The court also noted that Mejares' actions before, during, and
after the crime contradicted her claim of innocence.
• The court concluded that Mejares, taking advantage of her
position as a domestic helper, committed the crime of qualified
theft.
• However, the court modified the penalty to be imposed on
Mejares due to a recent law adjustment.
• The court explained that the recent law adjusted the penalties for
theft based on the value of the stolen items.
• Since the prosecution failed to establish the precise values of the
stolen items, the court applied the minimum penalty under Article
309 of the Revised Penal Code.
• The court also considered the fact that Mejares had already served
her sentence for almost four years and ordered her immediate
release, unless she is being detained for a separate charge.
Atienza vs. Board of Medicine
G.R. No. 177407, Feb 9, 2011
Dr. Atienza challenges the admission of exhibits in a complaint for
gross negligence, but the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Board of
Medicine, stating that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in
administrative proceedings.
FACTS:
• Dr. Rico Rommel Atienza filed a petition for certiorari against
the Board of Medicine (BOM) after a kidney operation error.
• Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center (RMC) for a
check-up due to her lumbar pains and was referred to Dr. Pedro
Lantin III of RMC.
• Diagnostic tests revealed that her right kidney was normal, but
her left kidney was non-functioning and non-visualizing.
• Editha underwent a kidney operation in September 1999.
• Editha's husband filed a complaint for gross negligence and/or
incompetence against the doctors involved in the operation,
including Atienza.
• It was alleged that the doctors removed Editha's fully
functional right kidney instead of the left non-functioning
kidney.
• The complaint was heard by the BOM.
• Editha filed a formal offer of documentary evidence, including
certified photocopies of X-ray request forms and other
documents.
• Atienza objected to the admission of these exhibits, arguing
that they were inadmissible because they were mere
photocopies, not properly identified and authenticated, and
hearsay.
• The BOM admitted Editha's exhibits.
• Atienza filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
• Atienza filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
(CA), challenging the admission of the exhibits.
• The CA dismissed the petition.
• Atienza filed a petition for review on certiorari with the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
• W/N the admission of the exhibits by the BOM was in
accordance with the law and the applicable decisions of the
Supreme Court.
RULING:
• The Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari was the
proper remedy to challenge the BOM's orders.
• The court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
BOM in admitting the exhibits.
• The court emphasized that the rules of evidence are not strictly
applied in administrative proceedings.
• The fact sought to be proved by the exhibits, the proper
anatomical locations of Editha's kidneys, is covered by
mandatory judicial notice.
• The best evidence rule was inapplicable in this case, as the
subject of inquiry was not the contents of a document but the
liability of the doctors for gross negligence.
• The court rejected Atienza's argument that the exhibits were
hearsay, stating that the anatomical positions of Editha's
kidneys could still be established through other means, such as
a belated ultrasound or x-ray.
• The Supreme Court denied Atienza's petition and affirmed the
decision of the CA.
• The court held that the admission of the exhibits by the BOM
did not violate Atienza's substantive rights and that the rules of
evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings.
RATIO:
Discretion in Admitting Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
• The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in administrative
proceedings.
• Administrative bodies have the discretion to admit evidence
that may appear to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or
admissibility.

Arguments Against the Admission of Exhibits

• Dr. Atienza argues that the exhibits offered by the complainant
violate the best evidence rule, have not been properly identified
and authenticated, are hearsay, and are incompetent to prove their
purpose.
Court's Ruling on the Admissibility of Exhibits
• The Supreme Court disagrees with Dr. Atienza and states that
the exhibits are admissible.
• The exhibits prove the proper anatomical locations of the
kidneys, which is covered by mandatory judicial notice.
• The best evidence rule is inapplicable in this case.
People vs. Tundag
G.R. No. 135695-96, Oct 12, 2000
Appellant Tomas Tundag was found guilty of two counts of simple
rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with the court considering
the aggravating circumstance of the appellant's relationship with the
victim, his daughter, and awarding exemplary damages; however, due
to the lack of independent proof of the victim's age, the court modified
the judgment to two counts of simple rape instead of qualified rape.
FACTS:
• Appellant Tomas Tundag was found guilty of two counts of
simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
• The case was an automatic review of the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City in Criminal Cases Nos.
DU-6186 and DU-6203.
• The complaints filed by Tundag's daughter, Mary Ann, alleged
that the rape incidents happened twice, on September 5, 1997,
and November 7, 1997.
• Tundag's defense was bare denial.
ISSUE:
• W/N Tundag is guilty of two counts of simple rape.
RULING:
• Tundag is guilty of two counts of simple rape.
RATIO:
• The trial court found Tundag guilty based on the testimony of
the private complainant, which was straightforward, detailed,
and consistent.
• The victim's account of the rapes was corroborated by medical
findings of lacerations in her hymen.
• The trial court also considered the fact that the victim
understood the consequences of prosecuting the rape charges
against her own father.
• However, the court modified the judgment to two counts of
simple rape instead of qualified rape due to the lack of
independent proof of the victim's age.
• The prosecution failed to present the birth or baptismal
certificate of the victim, and the victim herself admitted that
she did not know her exact age.
• The court emphasized the need for independent proof of the
victim's age, even if it is not contested by the defense.
• The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty
and clearness as the crime itself.
• The court also discussed the defense of alibi and denial, stating
that it is an inherently weak defense, especially in the face of
positive identification by the victim.
Agbayani vs. Lupa Realty Holding Corp.
G.R. No. 201193, Jun 10, 2019
A dispute over a parcel of land in the Philippines arises when
Tranquilino Agbayani claims his signature on a Deed of Absolute Sale
was forged, leading to a legal battle that ultimately results in the
cancellation of Lupa Realty Holding Corporation's transfer certificate
of title and the declaration of Tranquilino as the rightful owner of the
land.
FACTS:
• Tranquilino Agbayani claims that his signature on a Deed of
Absolute Sale was forged.
• The disputed land is a 91,899-square meter parcel of land in
Barrio Sinungan, Sta. Ana, Cagayan.
• Tranquilino filed a complaint against Lupa Realty Holding
Corporation, alleging that the property was already registered
in Lupa Realty's name and that his signature on the Deed of
Absolute Sale must be a forgery.
• Tranquilino sought the cancellation of Lupa Realty's transfer
certificate of title and the reinstatement of his own title.
• Lupa Realty countered that Tranquilino had sold the property
to his brother, Nonito Agbayani, who then sold it to Moriel
Urdas, and eventually to Lupa Realty.
• The trial court ruled in favor of Tranquilino, declaring Lupa
Realty's title null and void and reinstating Tranquilino's title.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that
Tranquilino failed to present clear and convincing evidence of
forgery and that his action for nullity of the Deed of Absolute
Sale was a collateral attack on a Torrens title.
• The Supreme Court found that the 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale
was indeed falsified and that Lupa Realty's title was null and
void.
• The Court also held that the 1992 Deed of Absolute Sale
between Tranquilino and Nonito was invalid, as there was no
sale between them.
• Therefore, Lupa Realty could not be considered an innocent
purchaser for value.
• The Court reinstated the trial court's decision, ordering the
cancellation of Lupa Realty's title and the reinstatement of
Tranquilino's title.
ISSUE:
• W/N Tranquilino's signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was
forged.
RULING:
• The Supreme Court found that the 1997 Deed of Absolute
Sale was indeed falsified, and that Lupa Realty's title was null
and void.
RATIO:
• The Supreme Court found that there was clear and
convincing evidence that Tranquilino's signature on the Deed
of Absolute Sale was forged.
• Based on all the facts narrated, it is the 1997 DAS which is
sham or spurious. As noted above, these are: (1) the similarity
of its notarial details with those of the DAS Moriel-Lupa
Realty; (2) the recital that it pertained to the land covered by
"Original Certificate of Title No. P-26619 with Homestead
Patent No. 119163" and not to Tranquilino's OCT No. P-46041
with Free Patent No. 587747; (3) the inclusion of Lupa Realty,
represented by its President, Roberto P. Alingog, as a party and
the CTC details of Roberto P. Alingog, but who is not made a
signatory thereto; (4) the identity of its date of execution with
that of the DAS Moriel-Lupa Realty; and (5) the identity of the
notary public's details in both 1997 DAS and the DAS Moriel-
Lupa Realty.
• It is likewise significant to note the fact that Lupa Realty did
not even have the 1997 DAS marked and offered as its
evidence is a very strong indication of its falsity. In the Formal
Offer of Documentary Exhibits of Lupa Realty, the 1997 DAS
was not marked and offered as one of its exhibits. If the 1997
DAS was truly executed by Tranquilino and is genuine, why
did not Lupa Realty have it marked and offered as its
documentary exhibit? The answer is obvious: because Lupa
Realty wanted to distance itself therefrom because it might be
accused as being complicit with Moriel and/or his mother in
falsifying the 1997 DAS.
• Further, it is presumed that "evidence willfully suppressed
would be adverse if produced."
Diego vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 139282, Sep 4, 2000
A custodian of evidence is convicted of malversation of public
property after his negligence leads to the loss of a significant amount
of illegal drugs that were under his safekeeping.
FACTS:
• Romeo Diego was the evidence custodian of the National
Capital Region, Criminal Investigation Service Command,
Philippine National Police.
• On November 27, 1992, Diego received forty self-sealed
plastic bags of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu"
with an estimated street value of Five Million Pesos for
safekeeping.
• Diego received three subpoenas to bring the shabu to court as
evidence in a criminal case.
• On two occasions, the shabu was not presented as evidence due
to postponed hearings.
• Diego approached the presiding judge to turn over the shabu
to the court, but the court refused to accept it.
• On February 9, 1993, Diego traveled alone to the court and was
waylaid by holduppers who stole the bag containing the shabu.
• Diego reported the robbery to the court and his office.
• Diego was charged with malversation of public property and
convicted by the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE:
• W/N the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the
practically reverse procedure of presentation adopted by it is
sufficient to prove the essential elements of the crime charged
in the information.
• W/N assuming that the burden of evidence was properly
shifted to petitioner, the explanation he relied upon for the loss
of the subject "shabu" is sufficient to exonerate him from
liability for the offense charged.
RULING:
• The petition has no merit.
RATIO:
• Petitioner bewails the prosecution's reliance on the stipulation
of facts. It bears stress that the stipulation of facts is a judicial
admission and in the absence of a showing that "(1) the
admission was made through palpable mistake", or that "(2) no
such admission was made, the admissions bind the declarant".
• In this case, petitioner duly admitted in the stipulation of facts,
entered into during the pre-trial, that the subject shabu worth
five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) was in his custody for
safekeeping; that petitioner was subpoenaed to bring the shabu
to Branch 111, Regional Trial Court, Pasay City Court; that
petitioner failed to deliver the shabu before said court and that
neither was it returned to the evidence room. The mere fact that
petitioner failed to account for the shabu under his custody
raises the rebuttable presumption that he malversed the subject
shabu.
• The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any
public funds or property with which his chargeable, upon
demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie
evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to
personal uses.
• While the evidence on record fail to show that petitioner
misappropriated said public property for his personal
aggrandizement, the evidence points to the conclusion that the
loss of the shabu to armed men was through petitioner's
negligence.