2024 Feb 7 - Notes from Gil Paterno for Evidence

Tating vs Marcella

SUMMARY: Daniela sold a lot to her granddaughter Nena, as evidenced by a deed of

absolute sale which was duly notarized. Title over the subject property was transferred in the
name of Nena, however, the land remained in possession of Daniela. Daniela executed a
sworn statement claiming that she had actually no intention of selling the property; the true
agreement between her and Nena was simply to transfer title over the subject property in
favor of the latter to enable her to obtain a loan by mortgaging the subject property. But since
Daniela discovered that Nena did not secure any loan nor mortgage the property; she wants
the title in the name of Nena cancelled and the subject property reconveyed to her. Daniela
died, leaving her children as her heirs. In a latter, Carlos, one of the heirs, informed Nena that
they discovered the sworn statement she executed, and as a consequence, they are demanding
from Nena the return of their rightful shares over the subject property. RTC declared the
document of sale as null and void and ordered the cancellation of the TCT held by Nena, and
in lieu thereof to issue a new title in the names of the heirs. CA affirmed. SC revered the RTC
and CA decision after finding out that they are not supported by and in consonance with
evidence on record. Affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they are not generally
prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant’s
statements, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them.
Since respondents failed to prove by clear, strong and convincing evidence beyond mere
preponderance of evidence that the contract of sale between Daniela and Nena was simulated,
the legal presumption is in favor of the validity of contracts and the party who impugns its
regularity has the burden of proving its simulation.

DOCTRINE: The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence.
The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of
evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on
judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence. As in all civil
cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the material allegations of his complaint and he
must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the
defendant.

Knapp Vs. State

2024 Feb 7 - Evidence 1

2024 Feb 7 - Notes from Gil Paterno for Evidence

Evidence on collateral matters is not allowed. However, in this case

evidence of a collateral fact is admissible to prove the controverted fact
because there is a logical and reasonable inference of the existence of the
controverted fact. Nag fall ata yung case sa exception wherein may
reasonable degree to establish the probability of the fact to resolve the
death of the old man. General rule: bawal ang collateral evidence
(testimony ni physician) XPN: if admitted, there is a tendency to induce
belief the probability or improbability of the issue of the case (which is
death ni lolo)

Judicial Notice (JN), Defined: cognizance of certain facts which judges

may properly take and act on without proof. - JN is based on convenience
and expediency. - JN relieves the parties from the necessity of
introducing evidence to prove the fact noticed. The fact is proven by JN. -
The stipulation and admission of the parties or counsel cannot prevail
over the operation of the doctrine of judicial notice, and such are all
subject to the operation of the doctrine.

Two kinds of JN:

- Mandatory

2024 Feb 7 - Evidence 2

2024 Feb 7 - Notes from Gil Paterno for Evidence

- Discretionary

How JN May be Taken by the Court:

1. On its own initiative or motion
2. When it is requested or invited by the parties

Note: In Either Case, the court may allow the parties to be heard on the
matter in question

Judicial Notice of Laws

- GR: courts of justice are required to take JN of the laws
- EXC: In case of ORDINANCES, the rule is different

o MTCs: Required to take JN of the ordinances of the municipality or city

wherein they sit.

o RTC however, they must take such JN ONLY when: - Required to do

so by statute (ex. city charter); and - In a case on appeal before them and
wherein the inferior court took JN of an ordinance involved in said case.
(only to determine the propriety of taking JN)

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial

notice, without the introduction of evidence, of:
1. the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality,
2. the law of nations,
3. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
4. the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
5. the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines, 6. the laws of nature,
6. the measure of time, and
8. the geographical divisions. (1a)  A document, or any article for that
matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for identification; it
must be formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an opportunity
to object to it or to cross-examine the witness called upon to prove or
identify it. (Candido v. CA, 253 SCRA 78)

2024 Feb 7 - Evidence 3