Admissions

Marcos v. Heirs of Navarro, Jr

G.R. No. 198240, July 3, 2013

Petitioner LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS

Respondents THE HEIRS OFTHE LATE DR. ANDRES NAVARRO, JR., namely NONITA NAVARRO,
FRANCISCA NAVARRO MALAPITAN, SOLEDAD NAVARRO BROCHLER, NONITA
BARRUN NAVARRO, JR., IMELDA NAVARRO, ANDRES NAVARRO III, MILAGROS
NAVARRO YAP, PILAR NAVARRO, TERESA NAVARRO-TABITA, and LOURDES
BARRUN-REJUSO
FACTS: Spouses Andres Navarro, Sr. and Concepcion Medina-Navarro had died and left
behind several parcels of land including herein subject lot. The spouses were
survived by their daughters Luisa Navarro Marcos (petitioner), and Lydia Navarro
Grageda, and the heirs of their only son Andres Navarro, Jr (Respondent). Petitioner
and her sister Lydia discovered that respondents are claiming exclusive ownership
of the subject lot. Respondents based their claim on the Affidavit of Transfer of Real
Property where Andres, Sr. donated the subject lot to Andres, Jr.
Believing that the affidavit is a forgery, the sisters,  requested a handwriting
examination of the affidavit. The PNP handwriting expert PO2 Mary Alvarez found
that Andres, Sr.’s signature on the affidavit and the submitted standard signatures
of Andres, Sr. were not written by one and the same person. Thus, the sisters sued
the respondents for annulment of the deed of donation.
CONTENTIONS RESPONDENTS:
:  Moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a
witness. 
 They argued that the RTC did not
authorize the handwriting examination
of the affidavit. 
 PO2 Alvarez as a witness will violate their
constitutional right to due process since
no notice was given to them before the
examination was conducted.
 Thus, PO2 Alvarez’s report is a worthless
piece of paper and her testimony would
be useless and irrelevant.
RTC: granted respondents’ motion and disqualified PO2 Alvarez as a witness. The RTC
ruled that PO2 Alvarez’s supposed testimony would be hearsay as she has no
personal knowledge of the alleged handwriting of Andres, Sr. Also, there is no need
for PO2 Alvarez to be presented, if she is to be presented as an expert witness,
because her testimony is not yet needed.
CA: Dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether RTC erred in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as a witness?
SC: Reversed RTC. Held that RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying
PO2 Alvarez as a witness.
Jurisprudence provides that a witness must only possess all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications provided in the Rules of Court. Section 20, Rule 130 of
the Rules on Evidence provides:
SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications –Except as provided in the next
succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of
a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification.
Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under Sections 21 to 24, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence. Section 21 disqualifies a witness by reason of mental
incapacity or immaturity. Section 22 disqualifies a witness by reason of marriage.
Section 23 disqualifies a witness by reason of death or insanity of the adverse party.
Section 24 disqualifies a witness by reason of privileged communication.

Jurisprudence also provides that the specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses

excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the
Rules. The Rules should not be interpreted to include an exception not embodied
therein. The generosity with which the Rule allows people to testify is apparent.
Interest in the outcome of a case, conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided
by law, and religious belief are not grounds for disqualification.

Sections 19 and 20 of Rule 130 provide for specific disqualifications. Section 19

disqualifies those who are mentally incapacitated and children whose tender age or
immaturity renders them incapable of being witnesses. Section 20 provides for
disqualification based on conflicts of interest or on relationship. Section 21 provides
for disqualification based on privileged communications. Section 15 of Rule 132 may
not be a rule on disqualification of witnesses but it states the grounds when a
witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called.

There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from

taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties. The law does not provide
default as an exception. The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes
the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the
Rules. Where there are express exceptions these comprise the only limitations on
the operation of a statute and no other exception will be implied. The Rules should
not be interpreted to include an exception not embodied therein.

As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive and make
known her perception to others. She cannot be disqualified as a witness since she
possesses none of the disqualifications specified under the Rules. Respondents’
motion to disqualify her should have been denied by the RTC for it was not based on
any of these grounds for disqualification. Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Evidence is clear that the opinion of an expert witness may be received in evidence:
SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness – The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to
possess, may be received in evidence.
The word "may" in Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence signifies that the
use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of
the courts.
 The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere
statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may
afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and
between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape
notice or detection from an unpracticed observer.

ADMISSIONS – is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the
conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.

- Based on presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such
declarations were true.

Section 27, Rule 130 of Revised Rules of Evidence: Admissions of a party – the act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.

Requisites for the admissibility of an admission:

1. The act, declaration or omission must have been made by a party or by one by whom he is
legally bound.
2. The admission must be as to a relevant fact.
3. The admission may only be given in evidence against him.

Distinctions:

Admissions of a party Declarations against interests

Primary evidence and is receivable, although the Secondary evidence, receivable only when the
declarant is available as a witness. declarant is unavailable as a witness.

It is competent only when the declarant, or It is competent in any action to which it is

someone identified with legal interest with him,
is a party to the action; and need not have been
considered by the declarant as opposed to his
interest at the time when it was made.
relevant, although the declarant is not a party to,
or in privy with any party to the action; and it
must have been, when made, to the knowledge
of the declarant, against his obvious and real
interest.

Admissions Confession
A statement of fact which does not involve an A statement of fact which involves an
acknowledgment of guilt or liability. acknowledgement of guilt or liability.
Applied to civil transactions and to matters of fact Applied to acknowledgments of guilt in criminal
in criminal cases not involving criminal intent. cases.
May be express or tacit. Must be express.
- An admission, in general sense, includes confessions, the former being a broader term because,
accordingly, a confession is also an “admission... by the accused of the fact charged against him
or of some fact essential to the charge.” (Wigmore)
 Judicial Admission Extrajudicial Admission
Made in course of the proceedings in the same Out-of-court declarations
case
Does not require proof; deemed automatically Requires proof; must be formally offered in
part of the record. evidence.
Conclusive upon the admitter. But may be Rebuttable.
contradicted by showing:
a. It was made through palpable mistake
b. It was in fact, not made
Admissible, even if it is a self-serving declaration. Admissible, only if its not a self-serving
declaration.

It is not essential to admissibility of an extrajudicial admission that the declarant shall have had firsthand
knowledge of the fact declared. Based on the presumption that the one admitting facts against his own
interest is presumed to have known whereof he speaks.