48 Concepcion Chua Gaw v. Suy Ben Chua, Felisa Chua
GR 169855 April 16 2008
J nachura
Topic: Best Evidence Rule
Specifically: Exception to Bes Evidence Rule
FACTS:
 Chua Gaw borrowed from her sibling Suy Ben
P200,000 which they will use for construction of
their house.
 Suy Ben granted provided it be paid in 6months
without interest.
 Despite expiry of 6 months, Chua Gaw failed to pay
the loan. Suy Ben sent demand letters but were
unheeded.
 Hence Suy Ben filed a complaint for sum of money
against Gaw before RTC.
 In Gaw’s answer she contended that the P200k was
not a loan but her share in profits of their parent’s
family business. The family business (Hangonoy
Lumber) is among the properties left by their
deceased father and partitioned to the siblings
accordingly.
 During Trial Gaw called Suy Ben to testify as adverse
witness. They testified that the family business was
conjugal property of his parents and managed by
them during earlier days. But now, Suy Ben claims
that he owns the lots where the business was
operating.
 On cross-examination, Suy Bien claimed to have
eventually owned not only the lots but also the
family business. He presented a Deed of Partition
over the family business, which adjudicated the
same to a co-heir. But the said co-heir executed a
Deed of Sale dated August 1990 in favor of Suy Ben.
 RTC then rendered a decision in favor of Suy Ben and
ordered Gaw to pay the P200k.
> RTC found for the validity of the 2 deeds presented
evidencing transfer of ownership to Suy Ben, the
contents of which were never impugned.
> RTC also rationed that even though the original
copies of the deed are not presented, Gaw judicially
admitted the execution of the deeds and
acknowledged the signatures therein. THUS, an
exception to the best evidence rule.
 Aggrieved, Gaw appealed to CA contending:
> The usage of Suy Ben’s testimony as evidence for
Gaw. Since it is an adverse testimony.
> The admissibility of the deeds because no originals
were presented.
 CA nonetheless affirmed RTC. Hence this certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether the decision was made in violation of the
best evidence rule when the courts relied merely on
photocopies instead of the original ones, as required by Rule
130 Sec. 3 ROC.
HELD: NO. It was not in violation. Hence it is valid.
 Best evidence rule applies only when the content of
a document is the subject of the inquiry.
 When the issue is only as to whether such document
was actually executed or in existence, testimonial
evidence is admissible without the need for best
evidence rule. Any evidence is also admissible
without the need to account for the original copy.
 Moreover, the original need not be produced when
the opponent does not dispute the contents of the
document.
 IN THIS CASE, the best evidence rule is not applicable
because
 > There was no dispute as to the contents of the
deed
 > Gaw never denied the existence of the deeds and
in fact acknowledged her signatures therein
 Therefore, the deeds are admissible. The contract
reduced in writing is the best evidence of the true
intentions of the parties. It may not be defeated by
mere unilateral and oral assertions of one party.
Petition Denied. CA affirmed.
Side Issue: Whether courts have committed an error in the
application of rule on examination of adverse party or hostile
witness under Rule 132 Section 10(d) and (e)
HELD: NO
 It was at the instance of the calling party that his
adverse party takes the witness stand. Nonetheless,
the calling party may impeach the adverse witness’
testimony. Thus, the calling party is not bound by the
adverse party’s testimony and may present evidence
to rebut the same.
 However, in this case, Gaw as the calling party failed
to rebut Suy Ben’s testimony but in fact admitted to
it.
 Nevertheless, to establish preponderance of
evidence in civil cases the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case is considered regardless of
who actually presented it.
 So, the parties should have just rely on the strength
of their evidence rather than the weakness of the
adversaries’.
 Since Gaw failed to impugn the evidence presented
by Suy Ben, the latter’s evidence become weightier.