25. G.R. No.
160855,April 16, 2008 admitted that she signed the Deed of
CONCEPCION CHUA GAW v.
SUY BEN CHUA and
FELISA CHUA
Facts:
Chua Chin died leaving his wife, Chan Chi
and their seven children. A Deed of
Partition was executed to settle the heirs’
interest in Hagonoy Lumber wherein Chan
Chi (wife) and the six children voluntarily
renounced and waived their shares in
favor of their co-heir, Chua Sioc Huan.
After several years, by virtue of a Deed of
Sale, Chua Sioc Huan sold her rights and
interests in Hagonoy Lumber to his
brother Suy Ben Chua.
Concepcion Chua Gaw and her husband
borrowed money from Suy Ben Chua but
the former failed to pay, hence, a
complaint for sum of money was filed.
Spouses Gaw contended that the money
from Suy Ben was not a loan but their
share in the profits of Hagonoy Lumber.
They added that the Deed of Partition and
Deed of Sale were not true and valid
agreements and do not express the real
intention of the parties since these were
mere paper arrangements. Moreover, since
mere copies of the Deeds were presented,
they should not be presented in
accordance with the best evidence rule.
The Spouses called Suy Ben to testify as
adverse witness wherein Suy Ben stated
that he is currently the owner of Hagonoy
Lumber upon cross-examination. The
Spouses argued that adverse witness’
testimony elicited during cross-
examination should not be considered as
evidence of the calling party, that she is
not bound by such testimony.
Issues:
1. WON the Best Evidence Rule is
applicable in this case.
2. WON the Spouses are bound by the
testimony of Suy Ben as an adverse
witness.
Held:
1. No, the Best Evidence Rule is not
applicable.
There was no dispute as to the terms of
either deed; hence, mere copies of the two
deeds are admissible. Concepcion never
even denied their due execution and
Partition. As for the Deed of Sale, she had,
in effect, admitted its genuineness and
due execution when she failed to
specifically deny it in the manner required
by the rules. She merely claimed that said
documents do not express the true
agreement and intention of the parties.
Apparently, she did not contest the
contents of these deeds but alleged that
there was a contemporaneous agreement
that the transfer of Hagonoy Lumber to
Chua Sioc Huan was only temporary.
Hence, when the terms of an agreement
have been reduced to writing, it is deemed
to contain all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and
their successors in interest, no evidence of
such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement.
2. Yes, the Spouses are bound by Suy
Ben’s testimony.
Preponderance of evidence is determined
by considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, culled from the
evidence, regardless of who actually
presented it. A party who calls his
adversary as a witness is, therefore, not
bound by the latter’s testimony only in the
sense that he may contradict him by
introducing other evidence to prove a state
of facts contrary to what the witness
testifies on.
In the present case, Concepcion, by her
own testimony, failed to discredit Suy
Ben’s testimony on how Hagonoy Lumber
became his sole property.