You are on page 1of 3

University of the Philippines College of Law

MSI, 2-D

Topic Best evidence rule


Case No. GR No. 187850 / August 16, 2016
Case Name Lorenzana v. Lelina
Ponente Jardeleza, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 In 1975, Ambrosia Lelina (Ambrosia), married to Aquilino Lelina (Aquilino), executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over one-half
(1/2) of an undivided parcel of land in favor of her son, the respondent Rodolfo Lelina (Rodolfo).
 The Deed of Absolute Sale (DAS), however, specified only an area of 810 sq. m. as the one-half (1 /2) of the property
covered by the tax declaration (it should have been half of 16k sq. m.). Nevertheless, the DAS contained the technical
description of the land. Immediately after the execution of the DAS, Rodolfo took possession of the property and the
tenants would continue delivering to him his share of the produce of the property.
 A complaint for quieting of title and cancellation of documents was filed by Rodolfo, prompted by the turn of events, when,
sometime in August 1996, he and his three tenants were invited at the Municipal Agrarian Office [of Tagudin, Ilocos Sur] for
a conference where they were informed that the property is already owned by petitioner Anita Lorenzana by virtue of a
Deed of Final Conveyance and tax declaration, both under her name.
 Petitioner claimed that she acquired a land with an area of 16,047 sq. m. through a foreclosure sale. She averred that she
was the judgment creditor in a case for collection of sum of money she filed against Aquilino, and when the decision in her
favor became final, the portion of the land covered by tax declarations under the name of Ambrosia was levied upon, and
by reason of the expiration of the period within which respondent could have legally redeemed the same.
 RTC ruled in favor of respondent upholding his ownership over the half of the levied property. It ruled that the levied
property is exclusively owned by Ambrosia (it was undisputed that the property is found within the levied property; it was
further shown that the Deed of Final Conveyance expressly describes the levied property as registered and owned by
respondent) and could not be held to answer for the obligations of her husband in the collection case. As a result, it
declared the Deed of Final Conveyance dated October 9, 1978 (pertaining to that of petitioner), as well as the proceedings
taken during the alleged auction sale of levied property, invalid and without force and effect on Ambrosia's paraphernal
property.
 The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC and upheld respondent's ownership over the property. It ruled that the power of
the court in the execution of its judgment extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor;
Ambrosia exclusively owned the levied property, and petitioner cannot rely on the execution sale in proving that she has
better right over the property because such execution sale is void.
 Hence, this petition under Rule 45.
 Summary of petitioner’s arguments:
o Respondent’s sole basis for his claim is the DAS, the original of which was not presented in court. Since only a
photocopy was presented, its contents are inadmissible for violating the best evidence rule. Thus, his claim of
ownership should be denied.
o Even if the DAS be considered as evidence, it only proves respondent’s ownership over 810 sqm. The area of the
lot awarded should be limited to what was prayed for in the complaint.
o The property is jointly owned by the spouses, and therefore, it may be validly held answerable for the obligations
incurred by Aquilino.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
Whether the presentation YES. This proves that respondent is owners of half of the levied property.
of the photocopy of the
DAS is admissible as This Court disagree with petitioner’s contention as regards the photocopy.
evidence
University of the Philippines College of Law
MSI, 2-D

 The best evidence rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is the contents
of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself
except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of
Court. As such, mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the
best evidence rule.
o Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be
validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts are not
precluded to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document when
no objection was raised when it was formally offered
 In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be
made at the proper time, and the grounds specified.
o Objection to evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered. In
case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of
the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for
which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any
other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made. And
when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the
time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered
as waived.
o This is true even if by its nature the evidence is inadmissible and would
have surely been rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time.
Moreover, grounds for objection must be specified in any case. Grounds
for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived,
even if the evidence was objected to on some other ground. Thus, even
on appeal, the appellate court may not consider any other ground of
objection, except those that were raised at the proper time.

In this case, the objection to the Deed of Absolute Sale was belatedly raised. Respondent
submitted his Formal Offer of Evidence on February 12, 2003 which included the DAS as
Exhibit A. While petitioner filed a Comment and Objection on February 21, 2003, she only
objected to the Deed of Absolute Sale for being self-serving. In the Order dated February
27, 2003, the RTC admitted the DAS, rejecting the objection of petitioner. Having failed to
object on the ground of inadmissibility under the best evidence rule, petitioner is now
deemed to have waived her objection on this ground and cannot raise it for the first
time on appeal.

Whether this is a lump sum YES. The SC consistently ruled that what really defines a piece of land is not the area,
sale so that the rules in calculated with more or less certainty mentioned in the description, but its boundaries laid
Article 1542 of the [New] down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. Where land is sold for a lump sum
Civil Code shall then be and not so much per unit of measure or number, the boundaries of the land stated in the
applicable? (Note: for your contract determine the effects and scope of the sale, and not its area. This is consistent
reference only; not really with Article 1542 of the Civil Code which provides:
relevant to the topic)
Art. 1542. In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a
certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or
decrease of the price, although there be a greater or lesser areas or number than
that stated in the contract. The same rule shall be applied when two or more
immovables are sold for a single price; but if, besides mentioning the boundaries,
which is indispensable in every conveyance of real estate, its area or number
should be designated in the contract, the vendor shall be bound to deliver all that
is included within said boundaries, even when it exceeds the area or number
University of the Philippines College of Law
MSI, 2-D

specified in the contract; and, should he not be able to do so, he shall suffer a
reduction in the price, in proportion to what is lacking in the area or number,
unless the contract is rescinded because the vendee does not accede to the
failure to deliver what has been stipulated.

In this case, the land covered by TD No. 14324-C in the Deed of Absolute Sale, from where
the one-half (1/2) portion belonging to respondent is taken, has the following boundaries:
North by Constancio Batac & National Highway; East by Cecilio Lorenzana; South by Creek;
and West by Andres Cuaresma. 62 This is the same extent and location of the lot covered
in the Deed of Final Conveyance [TD No. 11-05730-A in Ambrosia's name, and petitioner's
TD No. 11-21367-A]. This description should prevail over the area specified in the Deed of
Absolute Sale. Thus, we agree with the courts below that respondent owns half of the
levied property.

As a rule, if at the time of the levy and sale by the sheriff, the property did not belong to
the conjugal partnership, but was paraphemal property, such property may not be
answerable for the obligations of the husband which resulted in the judgment against him
in favor of another person. The levied property being exclusive property of Ambrosia, and
Ambrosia being a party to the collection case, the levied property may not answer for
Aquilino's obligations. Even assuming that the levied property belonged to the conjugal
partnership of Ambrosia and Aquilino, it may still not be levied upon because petitioner
did not present proof that the obligation redounded to the benefit of the family. More
importantly, Aquilino's interest over a portion of the levied property as conjugal property
is merely inchoate prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES

You might also like