I.

OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

A. Nature of object evidence

Object Evidence
Those addressed to the senses of the court [Sec. 1, Rule 130].

Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy
of trustworthy evidence. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we consistently rule that the physical evidence should
prevail [BPI v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177 (2008)].

A person’s appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object evidence, the same being addressed
to the senses of the court [People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516 (2003)].

An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible [Villaflor v. Summers, G.R., No.
16444 (1920)].

The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence [People v. Malimit,
G.R. No. 109775 (1996)].

View of an Object or Scene

The inspection or view outside the courtroom should be made in the presence of the parties or at
least with previous notice to them in order that they may show the object to be viewed. Such
inspection or view is a part of the trial, inasmuch as evidence is thereby being received, which is
expressly authorized by law [5 Moran 81, 1970 Ed., cited in In re Climaco, A.C. No. 134-J
(1974)].

B. Requisites for Admissibility

Basic Requisites for Admissibility

1. Evidence must be relevant;
2. Evidence must be authenticated by a competent witness;
3. Object must be formally offered [Sec. 34, Rule 132; Riano 101, 2016 Ed.].

1. RELEVANT
General Rule: When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court [Sec. 1, Rule 130].

Exceptions: Court may refuse exhibition of object evidence and rely on testimonial
evidence alone if—
a. Exhibition is contrary to public policy, morals or decency;
b. It would result in delays, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of
proportion to the evidentiary value of such object; [People v. Tavera,
G.R. No. L-23172 (1925)].
c. Evidence would be confusing or misleading;
d. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly
portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary.

2. COMPETENT AND AUTHENTICATED

Evidence Must Be Authenticated

To authenticate the object is to show that the object is the very thing that is either
the subject matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in the case.

Authentication Must Be Made by a Competent Witness

The witness must have the capacity to identify the object as the very thing
involved in the litigation.
 A witness can testify only to those facts which he/she knows of his/her personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his/her own perception [Sec. 22, Rule
130].

Note: Requisites for the Admissibility of Tape Recording

1. A showing that the recording was capable of taking testimony
2. A showing that the operator of the recording device is competent
3. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of recording
4. A showing that no changes, deletions, or additions have been made on the
recordings
5. A showing of the manner of preservation of the recording
6. Identification of speakers
7. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind
of inducement [Torralba v. People, G.R. No. 153699 (2005)].

C. Categories of Object Evidence

Two Classifications:
1. Actual physical or “autopic” evidence –those which have a direct relation or part in the
fact or incident sought to be proven and those brought to the court for personal
examination by the presiding magistrate;

2. Demonstrative Evidence
Those which represent the actual or physical object (or event in case of pictures or
videos) being offered to support or draw an inference or to aid in comprehending the
verbal testimony of a witness [People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209 (2019)].

Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be

admissible provided it shall be:
 Shown, presented or displayed to the court, and
 Identified, explained or authenticated
o By the person who made the recording, or
o By some other person competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof [Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence].

Note: Reenactments are object evidence because they are exhibited, examined and viewed by the court.
E.g. a person who hears a man cat-call a woman, and mimics the cat-call in court is reenacting the
event. He is not testifying because he was not declaring anything nor making a statement [Prof. Avena].
D. Chain Of Custody In Relation To Sec. 21 Of The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act Of
2002

“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction [Sec. 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution No. 1 (2002)].

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition
in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change
in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the
same [Malilin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008)].

As a general rule, four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item must be established:
1. First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer;
2. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;
3. Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and
4. Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court [People v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590 (2017)].

Note: If the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change,
that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is
what the proponent claims; otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied
with by the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy. And at all times, the
source of amorphous as well as firmly structured objects being offered as evidence must be
tethered to and supported by a testimony.

E. DNA Evidence

When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or from the victim’s
body for the suspect’s DNA. This is the evidence sample. The evidence sample is then matched
with the reference sample taken from the suspect and the victim. The purpose of DNA testing is to
ascertain whether an association exists between the evidence sample and the reference sample.
The samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile. The
test may yield three possible results:
a. Exclusion – The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different
sources. This conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or discussion;
b. Inconclusive – It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the
samples have similar DNA types. This might occur for a variety of reasons including
degradation, contamination, or failure of some aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the
analysis might then be repeated with the same or a different sample, to obtain a more
conclusive result; or
c. Inclusion – The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same source. In
such a case, the samples are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the
statistical significance of the similarity [People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656 (2002)].

Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case,
contrary to the belief of respondent in this action, will not violate the right against self-incrimination
[Herrera v. Alba,
G.R. No. 148220 (2005)].
“DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic information
directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples.

“DNA testing” means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA
from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information
obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable
certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates
from the same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from related persons
(kinship analysis) [Sec. 3, AM No. 06- 11-5-SC or Rule on DNA Evidence].

a. Application for DNA testing order

The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who
has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing.
Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:
a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
b. The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now
requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
d. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to
the proper resolution of the case; and
e. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting
the accuracy of integrity of the DNA testing.

Exception: DNA testing may be done without a prior court order, at the behest of any party
(including law enforcement agencies), before a suit or proceeding is commenced [Sec. 4, Rule on
DNA Evidence].

Note: The death of the petitioner (putative father) does not ipso facto negate the application of
DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. The term
“biological sample” means any organic material originating from a person’s body, even if found in
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body
fluids, tissues, hairs and bones [Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 1717113 (2007)].

b. Post-conviction DNA Testing; Remedy

Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to the
prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that:
1. A biological sample exists;
2. Such sample is relevant to the case;
and
3. The testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of
conviction [Sec. 6, Rule on DNA Evidence].

Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict

The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court
of origin if the results of the post- conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict.

In case the court, after due hearing finds the petition to be meritorious, if shall reverse or
modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless continued
detention is justified for a lawful cause.

A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with
any member of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to
the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders [Sec. 10, Rule on DNA Evidence].
c. Assessment of Probative Value of DNA Evidence and Admissibility

In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider the
following:
1. The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they
were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;
2. The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the
scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;
3. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-
setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the
laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic
casework and credibility shall be properly established; and
4. The reliability of the testing result, as provided in Sec. 8 [Sec. 7, Rule on DNA
Evidence].

Note: The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall apply
suppletorily [Sec. 7, Rule on DNA Evidence].

d. Rules on Evaluation of Reliability of the DNA Testing Methodology

In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the following:
1. The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching
DNA evidence;
2. The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in
the case; and that
3. DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of
non- paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of
the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the
Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher there shall be a disputable presumption of
paternity [Sec. 9, Rule on DNA Evidence].

It is not enough to state that the child’s DNA profile matches that of the putative father. A
complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the DNA profile of the putative father
does not necessarily establish paternity. For this reason, following the highest standard adopted in
an American jurisdiction, trial courts should require at least 99.9% as a minimum value of the
Probability of Paternity (“W”) prior to a paternity inclusion. W is a numerical estimate for the
likelihood of paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a random match of two
unrelated individuals. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternity inclusions, W will never equal to
100% [Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220 (2005)].

II. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

A. Meaning of Documentary Evidence

Consist of writings, recordings, photographs, or any material containing letters, words, sounds,
numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written expressions offered as
proof of their contents [Sec. 2, Rule 130]. If offered for some other purpose, they constitute
object evidence.

Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos
[Sec. 2, Rule 130].

1. Requisites for Admissibility

1. The document must be relevant;

2. The evidence must be authenticated;
3. The document must be authenticated by a competent witness;
4. The document must be formally offered in evidence [Riano 132, 2016 Ed.].

B. Best Evidence/Original Document Rule

1. Meaning of the Rule

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph, or
other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself [Sec. 3, Rule
130].

Note: Original document rule is a rule on admissibility (competence). This rule replaced the Best
Evidence Rule.

2. When Not Applicable

Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule (now original
document rule) does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary
evidence is likewise admissible without need for accounting for the original [Republic v. Gimenez,
G.R. No. 174673 (2016)].

Affidavits and depositions are considered as not being the best evidence, hence not admissible if
the affiants or deponents are available as witnesses [2 Regalado 721, 2008
Ed., citing 4 Martin 82].

The best evidence rule (now original document rule) does not apply to all types of evidence. It
does not comprehend object and testimonial evidence [Riano, 133, 2016 Ed.].

3. Meaning of Original Document and Duplicate

Original — The document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
executing or issuing it.

An “original” of a photograph includes the

negative or any print therefrom.

If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original” [Sec. 4(a), Rule 130].

Duplicate—counterpart produced by:

 The same impression as the original, or from the same matrix;
 Means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures;
 Mechanical or electronic recording;
 Chemical reproduction; or
 Other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original [Sec. 4(b), Rule 130].
 General Rule: A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original.

Exceptions:
1. A general question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
2. In the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the
original [Sec. 4(c), Rule 130].

Note: 2019 Amendments made substantial changes to Sec. 4, Rule 130.

Carbon copies are deemed duplicate (originals) [People v. Tan, G.R. No. L-14257
(1959); Skunac v. Sylianteng, G.R. No. 205879 (2014)].

4. Exception; Secondary Evidence; Summaries

The following are the exceptions to the original document rule:

a. When the original is unavailable

1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court;
2. Upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability; and
3. Without bad faith on the offeror’s part.

What to present to prove contents (in this order)

1. A copy;
2. A recital of its contents in some authentic document; or
3. The testimony of witnesses [Rule 130, Sec. 5].

In order that secondary evidence may be admissible, there must be proof by satisfactory evidence
of:
1. Due execution of the original;
2. Loss, destruction, or unavailability of all such originals; and
3. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce the original
[Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc, G.R. No. 171701 (2012)].

The correct order of proof is existence, execution, loss, and contents [Republic v. Cuenca, G.R.
No. 198393 (2018)].

Due execution of the document should be proved through the testimony of either:
1. The person or persons who executed it;
2. The person before whom its execution was acknowledged; or
3. Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered, or who, after its execution
and delivery, saw it and recognized the signatures, or by a person to whom the parties to
the instruments had previously confessed the execution thereof [Director of Lands v. C.A.,
G.R. No. L-29575 (1971)].

When more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost,
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before secondary evidence can be given of any one. A
photocopy may not be used without accounting for the other originals [Citibank v. Teodoro, G.R.
No. 150905 (2003)].

The general rule concerning proof of a lost instrument is, that reasonable search shall be made
for it in the place where it was last known to have been, and, if such search does not discover it,
then inquiry should be made of persons most likely to have its custody, or who have some
reasons to know of its whereabouts [Tan v. CA, G.R. No. L-56866 (1985)].

b. When the original is in the custody or control of the adverse party OR original
cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures

What to Present to Prove Contents

Same as when lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court [Sec. 6, Rule 130].
 c. When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts are
voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact
sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole (“Summaries”)

What to Present to Prove Contents

Chart, summary, or calculation of the contents of such evidence.

The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at
a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court [Sec. 7,
Rule 130].

d. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office
What to Present to Prove Contents Certified copy issued by the public officer in custody
thereof [Sec. 8, Rule 130].

e. When original is outside the jurisdiction of the court

When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, secondary evidence is admissible.
[Regalado 784, 2008 Ed., citing PNB v. Olila, G.R. No. L-8189 (1956),
unreported].

C. Parol Evidence Rule

1. Meaning of the Rule

Any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a
complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document [2 Regalado 730, 2008 Ed.].

2. Application of the Parol Evidence Rule

General Rule
When the terms of an agreement (including wills) have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties and their successors
in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement [Sec. 10,
Rule 130].

The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written
instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at or before the execution of
the parties' written agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying
the purport of the written contract. [Felix Plazo Urban Poor Settlers v. Lipat, G.R. No. 182409
(2017)].

Where Not Applicable

It does not apply when third parties are involved or those not privy to the written instrument in
question and does not base a claim or assent a right originating in the instrument [Lechugas v.
C.A., G.R. No. L- 39972 & L-40300 (1986)].

3. When Parol Evidence Can Be Introduced

How Parol Evidence Can Be Introduced General Rule: Ground/s for presenting parol
evidence is put in issue in a verified pleading [Sec. 10, Rule 130].

Exception: If the facts in the pleadings all lead to the fact that it is being put in issue then the
Parol Evidence exception may apply [Sps. Paras v. Kimwa Corporation, G.R. No. 171601
(2015)].

In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted:
 ● That the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party's
pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and
● That the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion
proposed by the presenting party. [Sps. Paras v. Kimwa Corporation,
G. R. No. 171601 (2015)].

When Can Parol Evidence Can Be Introduced

● Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement

● Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto
● Validity of the written agreement
● Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest after the
execution of the written agreement.

4. Distinction Between the Original Document Rule and Parol Evidence Rule

Original Document Parol Evidence

Rule Rule
Contemplates the Presupposes that the
situation wherein the original document is
original writing is not available in court
available and/or there
is a dispute as to
whether said writing
is the original

Prohibits the Prohibits the varying

introduction of of the terms of a
substitutionary written agreement
evidence in lieu of the
original
document
regardless of WON it
varies the contents of
the original

Applies to all kinds of Applies only

to
writings, recordings, documents
photographs, or any contractual in nature
material and to wills
containing
letters, words,
sounds,
numbers,
figures, symbols, or
their equivalent, or
other modes of
writtenexpression
offered as proof of
their contents
Can be invoked by Can be invoked only
any party to an action when the
regardless of WON controversy is
such party between the parties
participated in to the written
 the
writing involved agreement, their
privies or any party
directly affected
thereby
[2 Regalado 731, 2008 Ed.]

D. Interpretation of Documents

Interpretation is defined as the act of making intelligible what was before not understood,
ambiguous, or not obvious; it is a method by which the meaning of language is ascertained.
[PSALM v. Sem-Calaca Power Corp., G.R. No. 204719 (2016).

1. General Rule; Literal, Legal Meaning

The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place
of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise [Sec. 11, Rule 130].

If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties,
the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. If the words appear to be contrary to the
evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former [Art. 1370, New Civil
Code].

When Necessary
A contract provision is ambiguous if it is susceptible of two reasonable alternative
interpretations [PSALM v. Sem-Calaca Power Corp., G.R. No. 204719 (2016)].

Where the language of a written contract is clear and unambiguous, the contract must be
taken to mean that which, on its face, it purports to mean, unless some good reason can be
assigned to show that the words should be understood in a different sense [Ibid].

Ambiguity Caused by One Party

The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who
caused the obscurity [Art. 1377, New Civil Code].

An ambiguity in a document is construed against the party who prepared the document, and in
accordance with the real intention of the parties [Capital Insurance v. Sadang, G.R. No. L-18857
(1967)].

2. Construction So as to Give Effect to All Provisions

In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or particulars,

such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all [Sec. 11, Rule 130].

The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones
that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly [Art. 1374, New Civil Code].

In the case at bench, the Memorandum of Agreement embodies certain provisions that are
consistent with either a conventional subrogation or assignment of credit. It has not been shown
that any clause or provision in the Memorandum of Agreement is inconsistent or incompatible
with a conventional subrogation. On the other hand, the two cited provisions requiring consent of
the debtor to the memorandum is inconsistent with a contract of assignment of credit. Thus, if we
were to interpret the same as one of assignment of credit, then the aforementioned stipulations
regarding the consent of Anglo-Asean Bank would be rendered inutile and useless considering
that, as previously discussed, the consent of the debtor is not necessary in an assignment of credit
[Licaros v. Gatmaitan,G.R. No. 142838 (2001)].

3. Construction of general and particular provisions

 In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a
general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a
particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it [Sec. 12, Rule 130].

4. Construction according to circumstances

For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made,
including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the
judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he or she is to interpret [Sec. 13,
Rule 130].

In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent
acts shall be principally considered. [Art. 1371, New Civil Code].

Contracts executed together and in connection with each other may be used to interpret an
ambiguity found in one of them [Southeast Asia Shipping Corp. v. Seagull Maritime Corp., G.R.
No. 144439 (2003)].

5. Construction of peculiar signification of terms

The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation,
but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar
signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the
agreement must be construed accordingly [Sec. 14, Rule 130].

Words which may have different significations shall be understood in that which is most in
keeping with the nature and object of the contract [Art. 1375, New Civil Code].

We hold that reading the clause as requiring a final judgment is a strained interpretation and
contrary to settled rules of interpretation of contracts. Paragraph 5(e) only requires that the
proceeds "could not be recovered from the insurer," and does not state that it should be so declared
by a court, or even with finality. In determining the signification of terms, words are presumed to
have been used in their primary and general acceptance, and there was no evidence presented to
show that the words used signified a judicial adjudication. Indeed, if the parties had intended the
non-recovery to be through a judicial and final adjudication, they should have stated so. [Security
Bank Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 141733 (2007)].

The reliance of the trial court in the Webster definition of the term "indicative," as also adopted by
petitioner, is misplaced. The transaction at bar involves the sale of an asset under a privatization
scheme which attaches a peculiar meaning or signification to the term "indicative price." [Moreno
Jr. v. Private Management Office, G.R. No. 159373 (2006)].

6. Written Words Control Printed

When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two
(2) are inconsistent, the former controls the latter [Sec. 15, Rule 130].

Rationale
The rationale for this rule is that the written words are the latest expression of the will of the
parties [De los Santos v. Vibar, G.R. No. 150931 (2008)].

7. Experts and Interpreters; When Resorted To

When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the
language is not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the
characters, or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the
meaning of the language [Sec. 16, Rule 130].

8. Preferred Among Two Constructions

 When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties
to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he or she supposed the other understood
it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be
taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made [Sec. 17,
Rule 130].

There is also no question that the 10% guaranteed yearly increase of rents provided for in sub-
paragraph 2.2 of the sub-lease agreement is for the benefit of respondent herein, being the sub-
lessor of the premises. As such, any doubt in interpretation must be in its favor [Horrigan v.
Troika Commercial, G.R. No. 148411 (2005)].

9. Construction in favor of natural rights

When an instrument is equally susceptible of two (2) interpretations, one (1) in favor of natural
right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted [Sec. 18, Rule 130].

0. Interpretation According to Usage

An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character [Sec. 20, Rule 130].

The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the
omission of stipulations which are ordinarily established [Art. 1376, New Civil Code].