OFFER OF EVIDENCE Assessor’s assessment of the property all in respondent’s
name since tax declarations are not conclusive proof of
ownership. PAREL v. PRUDENCIO It rejected the affidavit executed by Florentino Petition for review on certiorari declaring the house as owned by respondent saying FACTS: that the affidavit should be read in its entirety to On Feb. 27, 1992, Simeon Prudencio filed a determine the purpose of its execution; that it was complaint for recovery of possession and damages executed because of an advisement addressed to against Danilo Parel with the RTC Baguio. the late Florentino by the City Treasurer concerning Prudencio is claiming that he is the owner of a two- the property’s tax assessment and Florentino, storey residential house located at No. 61 Forbes Park thought then that it should be the respondent who National Reservation near Department of Public Service should pay the taxes; and that the affidavit cannot (DPS) compound, Baguio City be accepted for being hearsay. He also claims that the house was constructed in From this decision, Prudencio appealed, decision 1972-1975 from his own funds and declared in his name reversed by CA, declaring him the sole owner. in a tax declaration and that he has been paying the The CA found as meritorious respondent’s contention taxes on it ever since that since petitioner failed to formally offer in evidence any documentary evidence, there is nothing to refute the In 1973, when the 2nd floor of the house was already evidence offered by respondent. habitable, he allowed Parel’s parents to live there and It ruled that the TC’s statement that defendants’ supervise the construction below. When the house was occupancy of the house is due to a SPA executed by his finished, the Parel family was allowed to live there since parents is wanting of any concrete evidence on record; they have no house of their own. that said power of attorney was never offered, hence, Parel’s dad, Florentino, now deceased, was could not be referred to as petitioner’s evidence to Prudencio’s wife’s younger brother. support his claim; that except for the bare testimonies of In November 1985, Prudencio wrote Florentino a Candelario Regua, the carpenter-foreman, that it was notice for them to vacate the said house as the former Florentino who constructed the house and Corazon was due for retirement and he needed the place. Garcia, the former barangay captain, who testified that Danilo’s parents heeded this when they migrated to the lot was allocated to petitioner’s father, there was no US in 1986, however, Danilo and his family unlawfully supporting document which would sufficiently establish entered and took possession of the ground floor of the factual bases for the trial court’s conclusion; and that the house; and refused to leave despite many demands rule on offer of evidence is mandatory. So Prudencio filed an action for recovery of possession, and also asked from Parel for a monthly The CA found the affidavit dated Sep. 24, 1973 rental (3k) from April 1988 until he leaves the premises, of Florentino, petitioner’s father, stating that he is plus moral and exemplary damages and costs. not the owner of the subject house but respondent, as conclusive proof of respondent’s sole ownership Parel filed his Answer with Counterclaim alleging that of the subject house as it is a declaration made by his parents are co-owners of the house (ground floor to Florentino against his interest. Parel, 2nd floor to Prudencio), and that his parents spent It also gave weight to Prudencio’s tax declarations as their own resources in improving the house and that the sufficient to establish his case which constitute at least construction workers were hired by Florentino, and that proof that the holder has a claim of title over the Florentino was an awardee of the land on which the property. house stands. Parel filed an MFR, denied. He also claims that Prudencio had filed ejectment case as well as criminal cases against them involving the ISSUES: subject house, which were all dismissed. 1. WON Parel was able to prove by preponderance of Parel asked for the dismissal of the complaint and evidence that his father was a co-owner of the house. prayed for damages and attorney’s fees. NO. RTC declared that the house is co-owned by Parel 2. WON it was necessary to formally offer Parel’s and Prudencio, so Prudencio cannot evict Parel. Parel was documentary evidence. YES. also ordered to pay moral and actual damages, atty.’s 3. WON Florentino’s affidavit should be given weight fees, and costs. as conclusive proof of Prudencio’s sole ownership. RTC concluded that the land was allocated to YES. Florentino as part of a program of the former mayor of Baguio (Lardizabal) to allow lowly-paid gov’t workers to ISSUE 3 muna: construct their own houses on the reservation; that Petitioner argues that the CA erred in finding the Prudencio failed to show proof of any contract, written or affidavit of petitioner’s father declaring respondent as oral, express or implied, that the late Florentino and his owner of the subject house as conclusive proof that family stayed on the house not as co-owners but as mere respondent is the true and only owner of the house since lessees, nor any other proof that would clearly establish the affidavit should be read in its entirety to determine his sole ownership of the house; and, that the late the purpose for which it was executed. Florentino was the one who gathered the laborers for the Prudencio had shown sufficient evidence to support construction of the house and paid their salaries. Thus, his complaint for recovery of possession of the ground the RTC ruled that co-ownership existed between floor of the subject house as the exclusive owner thereof. respondent and petitioner’s father, Florentino. He presented the affidavit dated September 24, 1973 From this, RTC concluded that Florentino and executed by Florentino and sworn to before the Assistant Prudencio had an agreement that Florentino would City Assessor of Baguio City, G.F. Lagasca, which reads: contribute money for the construction and once the house is completed, hati sila. I, FLORENTINO PAREL, 42 years of age, employee, and RTC also questioned that Prudencio only claimed residing at Forbes Park, Reservation No. 1, after having been sole-ownership after 15 years. sworn to according to law depose and say: RTC did not give credence to the tax declaration as well as the several documents showing the City That he is the occupant of a residential building located at case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his Forbes Park, Reservation No. 1, Baguio City which is the favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to subject of an advicement addressed to him emanating from defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, the Office of the City Assessor, Baguio City, for assessment otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. and declaration for taxation purposes; Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence That I am not the owner of the building in question; thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the That the building in question is owned by Mr. Simeon B. defendant’s. The concept of “preponderance of evidence” Prudencio who is presently residing at 55 Hyacinth, Roxas refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more District, Quezon City. convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth. Further, affiant say not. ISSUE 2: Section 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 38. Declaration against interest. – The declaration Parel cited Bravo vs. Borja to support his claim that the rule that the court shall consider no evidence which made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, has not been formally offered is not absolute, and that against the interest of the declarant, if the fact his evidence, though not formally offered were marked as asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made exhibits in the presentation of testimonies of petitioner’s so far contrary to the declarant's own interest, that a witnesses, and were part of the testimonies, and also reasonable man in his position would not have made that the evidence were part of a memorandum filed the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be before the court. received in evidence against himself or his successors- Parel also insists that even without the documentary in-interest and against third persons. evidence, his testimony as well as that of his witnesses substantiated his claim. The theory under which declarations against Parel’s counsel asked that he be allowed to offer his interest are received in evidence notwithstanding documentary evidence in writing, he, however, did not they are hearsay is that the necessity of the file the same. Thus, the CA did not consider the occasion renders the reception of such evidence documentary evidence presented by petitioner. advisable and, further that the reliability of such Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court declaration asserts facts which are against his own provides: pecuniary or moral interest. Section 34. Offer of evidence. – The court shall consider Based on the affidavit, it is safe to presume that he no evidence which has not been formally offered. The would not have made such declaration unless he believed purpose for which the evidence is offered must be it to be true, as it is prejudicial to himself as well as to specified. his children’s interests as his heirs. A declaration against interest is the best A formal offer is necessary because it is the duty of a evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment only facts in dispute. and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit. It is a settled rule that the mere fact that a There is also no evidence that Florentino revoked particular document is identified and marked as an such affidavit, even when the criminal complaint for exhibit does not mean that it has thereby already been trespass to dwelling was filed by Prudencio, although this offered as part of the evidence of a party was dismissed because of absence of evidence that Florentino entered the house against Prudencio’s will and Parel cannot rely on the Bravo case because there, that and action for ejectment should be his remedy; and the court allowed evidence on minority by admitting the even when a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed certified true copy of the birth certificate attached to a against petitioner and his wife also in 1988 which was motion for bail even if it was not formally offered in subsequently dismissed on the ground that respondent’s evidence, because it was properly filed in support of a action should be an accion publiciana which is beyond the motion for bail to prove petitioner’s minority which was jurisdiction of the MTC. never challenged by the prosecution and it already The building plan of the house was in the name of formed part of the records of the case. Prudencio and his wife and the house was built in accordance to said plan. The rule referred to in the Bravo case was Section 7 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides: Prudencio was the one paying the real estate “Section 7. Evidence on motion.- When a motion is based property taxes on the house under his name since 1974, on facts not appearing of record, the court may hear the and the Parels did not pay this any time in their name. matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the While tax receipts and declarations are not respective parties, but the court may direct that the incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the depositions.” Not Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of property. But in this case, the taxes, taken with the other Court which is the one applicable to the present case. circumstances, SC concludes that Prudencio is the sole Even if the documentary evidence would be owner of the house. considered, the evidence showing that the cases filed by Prudencio were dismissed, and the SPA of Parel’s parents ISSUE 1: did not establish co-ownership. Since Prudencio has established his claim of sole The construction worker’s testimony that Florentino ownership, the burden of disproving so was shifted to was the one who hired him, and the barangay captain’s Parel. So he has to prove that Florentio was a co-owner allegation that he was allocated a lot does not overcome of the housel. Florentino’s own affidavit naming Prudencio as owner of In Jison v. Court of Appeals, the SC said that: “he the house. who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of The fact that not one of the witnesses saw proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of respondent during the construction of the said house proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil does not establish that petitioner’s father and respondent co-owned the house.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the decision of the
Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2000 and its Resolution dated November 28, 2000 are AFFIRMED.