Digest Gaw V Chua
Uploaded by
Jamiah HulipasDigest Gaw V Chua
Uploaded by
Jamiah HulipasGAW VS CHUA
FACTS:
Spouses Chua Chin and Chan Chi were the founders of three business enterprises
namely: Hagonoy Lumber, Capitol Sawmill Corporation, and Columbia Wood
Industries. They had seven children, namely: Chua Kiam Suy, Concepcion Chua Gaw
(Concepcion), Chua Suy Phen, Chua Suy Lu, Chua Suy Ben, Chua SiocHuan and
Julita Chua. Chua Chin died. At the time of his death, the net worth of Hagonoy
Lumber was P415,487.20.
Surviving heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Renunciation of
Hereditary Rights in favor of a co-heir, wherein the heirs settled their interest in
Hagonoy Lumber as follows: one-half (1/2) thereof will pertain to the surviving
spouse and the other half, will be divided among Chan Chi and the seven children in
equal pro indiviso shares each. In said document, Chan Chi and the six children
likewise agreed to voluntarily renounce and waive their shares over Hagonoy
Lumber in favor of their co-heir, Chua Sioc Huan.
In May 1988, petitioner Concepcion Chua Gaw and her husband, Antonio Gaw,
asked respondent, Suy Ben Chua, to lend them P200,000.00. The parties agreed
that the loan will be payable within six (6) months without interest. On June 7, 1988,
respondent issued in their favor a check for P200,000.00 which he delivered to the
couple. Antonio later encashed the check.
On August 1, 1990, Chua Sioc Huan, executed a Deed of Sale over all her rights and
interests in Hagonoy Lumber for a consideration of P255,000.00 in favor of
respondent. Meanwhile, the spouses Gaw failed to pay the amount they borrowed.
For settlement of their obligation, the respondent sent the couple a demand letter.
Failing to heed his demand, respondent filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against
the spouses Gaw with the RTC.
In their Answer, the spouses Gaw contended that the P200,000.00 was not a loan
but petitioner's share in the profits of Hagonoy Lumber, one of her family's
businesses. According to the spouses, when they transferred residence, petitioner
asked respondent for an accounting, and payment of her share in the profits, of
Capital Sawmills Corporation, Columbia Wood Industries Corporation, and Hagonoy
Lumber. In his Reply, respondent averred that the spouses Gaw did not demand
from him the mentioned accounting. Respondent insisted that the P200,000.00 was
given to and accepted by them as a loan and not as their share in Hagonoy Lumber.
Respondent also explained that his sister, Chua Sioc Huan, became the sole owner
of Hagonoy Lumber when the heirs executed the Deed of Partition as evidenced by
the Deed of Sale.
Defendants countered that the documents were not true and valid agreements and
do not express the real intention of the parties. They claimed that these documents
are mere paper arrangements which were prepared only upon the advice of a
counsel until all the heirs could reach and sign a final and binding agreement.
The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the respondent. It also held that held that
respondent is entitled to the payment of the amount of P200,000.00 with interest.
The trial court further held that the validity and due execution of the Deed of
Partition and the Deed of Sale, evidencing transfer of ownership of Hagonoy Lumber
from Chua Sioc Huan to respondent, was never impugned. Although respondent
failed to produce the originals of the documents, petitioner judicially admitted the
due execution of the Deed of Partition, and even acknowledged her signature
thereon, thus constitutes an exception to the best evidence rule.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RTC erred in admitting in evidence which is a mere copy of the Deed
of Partition and the Deed of Sale
RULING:
NO. A notarized document carries evidentiary weight as to its due execution and
documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the
presumption of regularity.
It is also worthy to note that both the Deed of Partition and the Deed of Sale were
acknowledged before a Notary Public. The notarization of a private document
converts it into a public document, and makes it admissible in court without further
proof of its authenticity. It is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Such a
document must be given full force and effect absent a strong ,complete and
conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaws or defects
recognized by law.
The “best evidence rule” as encapsulated in Rule 130, Section 3, of the Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure applies only when the content of such document is the
subject of the inquiry. 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 does not apply and testimonial evidence is
admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need
to account for the original.
The best evidence rule is not applicable to the instant case. Here, there was no
dispute as to the terms of either deed; hence, the RTC correctly admitted in
evidence mere copies of the two deeds. The petitioner never even denied their due
execution and admitted that she signed the Deed of Partition. As for the Deed of
Sale, petitioner had, in effect, admitted its genuineness and due execution when
she failed to specifically deny it in the manner required by the rules. The petitioner
merely claimed that said documents do not express the true agreement and
intention of the parties since they were only provisional paper arrangements made
upon the advice of counsel. Apparently, the petitioner does not contest the contents
of these deeds