fulfillment of contracts15cannot be left to the will of one of

the contracting parties.

Although a comparison of Justa Kausapins thumbmark
with the thumbmark affixed upon the deed of conveyance
would have easily cleared any doubts as to whether or not
the deed was forged, the records do not show that such
evidence was introduced by private respondents and the
lower court decisions do not
make mention of any
16
comparison having been made. It is a legal presumption
that evidence
willfully suppressed would be adverse if
17
produced. The failure of private respondents to refute the
due execution of the deed of conveyance by making a
comparison with Justa Kausapins thumbmark necessarily
leads one to conclude that she did in fact affix her
thumbmark upon the deed of donation in favor of her
stepdaughter.
Moreover, public respondents reliance upon Justa
Kausapins repudiation of the deed of conveyance is
misplaced for there are strong indications that she is a
biased witness. The trial court found that Justa Kausapin
was dependent
upon Enrique D. Hemedes for financial
18
assistance. Justa Kausapins own testimony attests to this
fact
Atty. Conchu:
Q: Aling Justa, can you tell the Honorable Court why you
donated this particular property to Enrique Hemedes?
_______________
15

Chavez vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 211 (1990).

16

Rollo, pp. 61, 90-96.

17

Rules of Court, Rule 131, sec. 3(e); Sulit vs. Court of Appeals, 268

SCRA 441 (1997).

18

Rollo of G.R. No. 107132, p. 94.

366

366

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals

A: Because I was in serious condition and he was the one

supporting me financially.
Q: As of today, Aling Justa are you continuing to receive