NEW ERA UNIVERSITY

College of Law
Prof. Judge Jacinto Dela Cruz

CONSTANTINO, ALVIN DJ
Subject: Philosophy of Law

CASE DIGEST:
[G.R. NO. 160855 : April 16, 2008]
CONCEPCION CHUA GAW, Petitioner, v. SUY BEN CHUA and
FELISA CHUA, Respondents.

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of a lumber

business called Hagonoy Lumber. Petitioner Corazon Chua sued
her brother, respondent Fidel Chua, claiming that she and her
husband were entitled to a share of the business and that the
respondent had taken ownership of it through fraud and undue
influence.
The trial court dismissed the petitioner's claim and ruled that the
respondent was the sole owner of the business. The petitioner
appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
trial court's decision. The petitioner then filed a petition for review
on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that there were
errors in the lower court's treatment of the respondent's testimony
as adverse witness and in the application of the best evidence rule.
However, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's
arguments and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts.

ISSUE in the LOWER COURT:

The issue in the lower court was the ownership of the Hagonoy
Lumber business and the validity of the loan agreement between
the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner claimed that she
and the respondent co-owned the business, while the respondent
asserted that he acquired sole ownership of the business through a
Deed of Sale. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent owed
her P200,000, which he borrowed from her and failed to pay back.
The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the P200,000 was
a loan that he and his wife made to the petitioner and her
husband.

RULING in the LOWER COURT:

In the lower court, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan ruled
in favor of the respondent, finding that the P200,000.00 given to
the petitioner by the respondent was a loan, not a payment for her
share in the Hagonoy Lumber business. The RTC also declared that
the respondent was the lawful owner of the Hagonoy Lumber
business and ordered the petitioner to vacate the premises and
turn over possession to the respondent. The RTC further ordered
the petitioner to pay the respondent P200,000.00, plus legal
interest from the time the complaint was filed until fully paid, and
P50,000.00 as attorney's fees.
ISSUE in the SUPREME COURT:
The main issue before the Supreme Court is whether or not the
Court of Appeals committed an error in affirming the decision of the
Regional Trial Court that upheld the ownership of the respondent
over the "Hagonoy Lumber" business and the validity of the
P200,000 loan transaction.

RULING of the SUPREME COURT:

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition was without merit and
affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It upheld the validity
of the deeds of partition and sale that led to the transfer of the
ownership of the "Hagonoy Lumber" business to the respondent. It
also ruled that the respondent's testimony during cross-
examination as adverse witness by his own counsel could be
considered as evidence, and that the RTC did not commit any error
in treating it as part of the petitioner's evidence. The Court also
found that the RTC's finding that the P200,000.00 was a loan was
supported by evidence on record. The petitioner's allegations were
found implausible, and her claims were not substantiated.
Therefore, the decision of the lower courts was affirmed, and the
petition was denied.