ASG Law

Tag: Best Evidence Rule

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Banks’ Responsibility to Protect Depositors’ Funds

    The Supreme Court held that Philippine Banking Corporation (BANK) breached its fiduciary duty to its depositor, Leonilo Marcos, by improperly offsetting his time deposits with a fictitious promissory note. This ruling underscores the high standard of care banks must exercise in handling depositors’ accounts, emphasizing the public trust inherent in the banking system. The court affirmed the bank’s liability to return Marcos’ time deposits with interest, further awarding moral and exemplary damages due to the bank’s negligence and failure to maintain proper records.

    Did the Bank’s Manager Deceive a Depositor? Tracing Fiduciary Duties in Finance

    In the 1980s, Leonilo Marcos sought to make secure investments in petitioner Philippine Banking Corporation. Marcos, persuaded by Florencio B. Pagsaligan, the BANK’s official and a close friend, made time deposits. On March 11, 1982, Marcos deposited P664,897.67 for which he received Receipt No. 635734. Then again, Marcos deposited P764,897.67 on March 12, 1982, although no official receipt was issued. He was assured by Pagsaligan via letter-certification that his deposits were secure. The maturity period for the time deposits was set for 90 days, earning 17% interest per annum.

    Marcos wanted to withdraw his time deposits to purchase construction materials, but Pagsaligan advised him to keep his deposits with the bank. In exchange, the bank would allow him to open several domestic letters of credit. The bank required a 30% marginal deposit on the letters of credit. The time deposits would secure the remaining 70%. Subsequently, Marcos signed three Trust Receipt Agreements totalling P851,250. When the trust receipts became due in March 1987, issues surfaced. Marcos was surprised to discover discrepancies and contested Promissory Note No. 20-979-83, claiming that the time deposits should have been applied to his trust receipt obligations, which would have fully covered the debt. As a result, Marcos filed a complaint for the sum of money and damages.

    The BANK countered that Marcos had outstanding obligations secured by a Deed of Assignment. According to the BANK, Marcos had secured these loans covered by Promissory Note No. 20-756-82 for P420,000, dated June 2, 1982, and Promissory Note No. 20-979-83 for P500,000, dated October 24, 1983. These debts were distinct from the trust receipt agreements. Moreover, because of the Deed of Assignment, when Marcos defaulted, the bank used the deposits to cover Promissory Note No. 20-979-83, which the bank considered settled. Ultimately, the BANK refuted the accusations of falsifying Promissory Note No. 20-979-83.

    The trial court found in favor of Marcos. It declared Promissory Note No. 20-979-83 void. Further, it required the bank to return the time deposits and pay attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, with some modifications, ruling that the total deposits were only P764,897.67. It removed the award for attorney’s fees. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the issues centered around procedural due process violations. The first being the right to cross-examine witnesses and the authenticity of actionable documents. It also challenged if the BANK was denied a chance to present additional evidence.

    In deciding the case, the Supreme Court emphasized the fiduciary duty banks owe to their depositors. This duty requires banks to maintain high standards of integrity and performance. The court underscored that banks must treat depositors’ accounts with meticulous care and accurately record every transaction. This reflects a reasonable expectation that banks will protect their financial interests. Citing Republic Act No. 8791, also known as the General Banking Law of 2000, the Court explicitly recognized the fiduciary nature of banking.

    In upholding the CA decision, the Supreme Court cited an earlier case that underscores a bank’s duty. In Simex International (Manila) Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court required banks to “treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.” Thus, the bank’s failure to provide original documents related to the loan and the offsetting transactions raised doubts about the loan’s existence. It substantiated claims that the BANK did not fully uphold its obligation to act in good faith and with reasonable care.

    Thus, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeal’s decision to offset Marcos’ outstanding debt. In this case, he had the three trust receipt agreements, factoring in both principal and interest. Although, in balancing the equities, the court also ordered the BANK to return to Marcos P500,404.11 as the remaining principal balance, with additional interest and damages. Because the banking sector is essential to economic stability, banking requires careful documentation. As it failed, its actions gave rise to the awards for moral and exemplary damages to rectify the wrongdoing caused by Pagsaligan, the branch manager, whose acts occurred within the scope of his work.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the Philippine Banking Corporation breached its fiduciary duty to its depositor, Leonilo Marcos, by improperly managing his time deposits and offsetting them with a fictitious promissory note.
    What is a bank’s fiduciary duty? A bank’s fiduciary duty is the obligation to act with the utmost good faith and care in managing depositors’ accounts. It requires banks to observe high standards of integrity and performance.
    Why did the Supreme Court rule against the bank? The Court ruled against the bank because it failed to provide the original copies of the promissory note and records evidencing the offsetting of the loan with Marcos’ time deposits. This failure raised serious doubts about the loan’s authenticity.
    What is the significance of Republic Act No. 8791 in this case? Republic Act No. 8791, or the General Banking Law of 2000, expressly recognizes the fiduciary nature of banking. This reaffirms that banks must adhere to high standards of integrity and performance.
    What damages were awarded to Marcos? Marcos was awarded P500,404.11 for the remaining principal amount of his time deposits, plus interest, and P211,622.96 in accumulated interest. The awards included moral damages of P100,000 and exemplary damages of P20,000.
    What does this case imply for bank depositors? This case implies that bank depositors have the right to expect their accounts will be managed with the utmost diligence and honesty. Banks are expected to accurately record all transactions.
    Why was the bank manager’s conduct significant? The bank manager’s actions were critical. As the branch manager was responsible for the fictitious loan agreements, it led to Marcos being deprived of his money. The bank is liable for his conduct due to its responsibility over its employees.
    What is the Best Evidence Rule and how did it apply? The Best Evidence Rule requires original documents to be presented in court. As the bank only provided photocopies, suspicions rose concerning Promissory Note No. 20-979-83.

    This case serves as a potent reminder to banking institutions of their fiduciary obligations to their depositors, highlighting the stringent expectations for accuracy, transparency, and ethical conduct. It reaffirms that depositors are entitled to damages when banks fail to meet these standards. This case will continue to be cited in instances where bank operations fall short of their required level of integrity and may set precedents for similar claims.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Leonilo Marcos, G.R. No. 127469, January 15, 2004

  • The Best Evidence Rule: Original Documents vs. Photocopies in Credit Card Disputes

    The Supreme Court ruled that photocopies of sales invoices are inadmissible as primary evidence to prove a credit card holder’s debt if the original documents are not presented or properly accounted for. This ruling reinforces the application of the best evidence rule, which requires the presentation of original documents to prove their contents unless specific exceptions are met. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing the due execution and subsequent loss or unavailability of the original documents before secondary evidence, such as photocopies, can be admitted in court. This decision protects cardholders from unsubstantiated claims based on incomplete or unreliable evidence.

    When Secondary Evidence Isn’t Enough: Proving Credit Card Debt in Court

    Citibank, N.A. Mastercard filed a collection suit against Efren S. Teodoro to recover P191,693.25, representing his outstanding credit card balance. During the trial, Citibank presented photocopies of sales invoices totaling only P24,388.36 to substantiate the debt. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Citibank, ordering Teodoro to pay P24,388.36 plus interest and penalties. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, stating that the photocopies were insufficient to prove Teodoro’s liability because Citibank failed to adequately explain why the original sales invoices were not presented. The Supreme Court then reviewed the CA’s decision.

    The core legal issue revolved around the admissibility of the photocopies of the sales invoices as evidence of Teodoro’s debt. The **best evidence rule**, as outlined in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, dictates that when the content of a document is the subject of inquiry, the original document must be presented. Secondary evidence, such as photocopies, is only admissible if the offeror can prove certain exceptions, including the loss or destruction of the original, or its unavailability without bad faith on the part of the offeror. The offeror must also prove the due execution or existence of the original document.

    Citibank argued that the testimony of its assistant manager, Mark Hernando, established the existence and due execution of the sales invoices, as well as their subsequent loss or unavailability. They further claimed that Hernando could identify Teodoro’s signature on the invoices by comparing it to his signature on the credit card application form. Teodoro countered that Hernando was not present during the execution of the sales invoices and could not competently testify to their authenticity or to the veracity of the signatures. He also argued that Citibank failed to sufficiently establish the loss or unavailability of the original invoices.

    The Supreme Court sided with Teodoro, emphasizing that Citibank, as the plaintiff, bore the burden of proving its case with a preponderance of evidence. Since the photocopies of the sales invoices were secondary evidence, Citibank had to meet specific requirements for their admissibility. The Court referred to Section 5 of Rule 130, which outlines the conditions under which secondary evidence may be admitted. Specifically, the offeror must prove the existence or due execution of the original, the loss or destruction of the original, and the absence of bad faith in the unavailability of the original.

    The Court found that while Citibank established the *existence* of the original sales invoices, it failed to prove their *loss* or *unavailability*. The testimony of Hernando was deemed insufficient to establish due diligence in searching for the originals, especially since he did not follow up on his request to Equitable Credit Card Network, Inc. for the documents. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in cases where multiple original copies of a document exist, all copies must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be admitted. The sales invoices were produced in triplicate, with copies given to the cardholder, the merchant, and Citibank. Citibank did not demonstrate that all three original copies were unavailable and that due diligence was exercised in the search for them.

    “SEC. 4. Original document. –

      x x x                         x x x                      x x x

    “(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.”

    Building on this, the Court cited the case of Santos v. Santos, which underscored the requirement to prove the loss, destruction, or unavailability of *all* original copies before secondary evidence can be admitted. Given Citibank’s failure to meet these evidentiary requirements, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, denying Citibank’s petition.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether photocopies of sales invoices were admissible as evidence to prove a credit card holder’s debt when the original documents were not presented or properly accounted for.
    What is the “best evidence rule”? The best evidence rule requires that the original document be presented as evidence when the content of that document is the subject of inquiry. Secondary evidence, like photocopies, is only admissible under specific exceptions.
    What must be proven before secondary evidence can be admitted? Before secondary evidence is admitted, the offeror must prove the existence or due execution of the original, the loss or destruction of the original (or reason for non-production), and the absence of bad faith in the unavailability of the original.
    What constitutes “due diligence” in searching for the original document? “Due diligence” means taking reasonable steps to locate the original document. In this case, it required Citibank to not only request the original invoices but also follow up on that request to ensure they were not available.
    What happens when multiple original copies of a document exist? When multiple original copies exist, all copies must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be admitted. The loss or unavailability of all original copies must be established.
    Why couldn’t the assistant manager’s testimony validate the photocopies? The assistant manager’s testimony was deemed insufficient because he was not present during the execution of the sales invoices and could not competently testify to their authenticity. He also didn’t sufficiently prove the original documents were lost.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that the photocopies of the sales invoices were inadmissible as evidence. Citibank failed to properly account for the original invoices or demonstrate due diligence in searching for them.
    What is the significance of the Santos v. Santos case cited by the Court? The Santos v. Santos case reinforced the principle that all original copies of a document must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be presented. This highlighted Citibank’s failure to account for all three original copies of the sales invoices.

    This case serves as a reminder of the importance of original documents in legal proceedings and the strict requirements for admitting secondary evidence. It underscores the need for businesses, particularly those dealing with credit card transactions, to maintain proper record-keeping practices. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of collection suits due to insufficient evidence.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: CITIBANK, N.A. MASTERCARD v. TEODORO, G.R. No. 150905, September 23, 2003

  • Dismissal Dilemmas: Proving Just Cause and Ensuring Due Process in Labor Disputes

    In Ester M. Asuncion v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Supreme Court held that an employer must present clear and convincing evidence to justify the dismissal of an employee. The Court emphasized the importance of due process, requiring employers to provide employees with a fair opportunity to defend themselves against accusations. This ruling underscores the protection afforded to workers under the Labor Code, ensuring that termination is based on substantiated facts rather than unsubstantiated claims. The decision serves as a reminder that employers bear the burden of proof in dismissal cases, and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of the employee.

    Unsigned Documents and Unfair Dismissal: Did Mabini Clinic Provide Due Process for Its Accountant?

    The case revolves around Ester Asuncion’s dismissal from Mabini Medical Clinic, where she worked as an accountant/bookkeeper. The clinic, citing chronic absenteeism, habitual tardiness, and other offenses, terminated Asuncion. The core legal question is whether the clinic sufficiently proved these offenses and afforded Asuncion due process. This case highlights the critical balance between an employer’s right to manage its workforce and an employee’s right to job security and fair treatment under the law. In essence, the Supreme Court sought to determine if Asuncion’s dismissal was justified or an act of illegal termination.

    The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Asuncion, finding that the clinic failed to provide adequate evidence to support its claims of absenteeism and tardiness. The clinic primarily relied on handwritten listings and computer print-outs, which the Labor Arbiter deemed insufficient. These documents lacked authentication and could easily be manufactured, raising doubts about their reliability. Building on this point, the Labor Arbiter noted the absence of the clinic’s official record book, which was referenced in the termination notice, further weakening the clinic’s case. The NLRC, however, reversed this decision, arguing that Asuncion had admitted to her absences and tardiness in a letter, offering justifications but not denying the occurrences themselves.

    The Supreme Court disagreed with the NLRC, emphasizing that factual findings of administrative bodies are not immune to review, especially when there is a divergence of opinions. The Court reiterated the constitutional right to due process, affirming that a worker’s employment is a protected property right. This means that dismissal must be based on just cause, supported by clear and convincing evidence, and accompanied by an opportunity for the employee to be heard. The burden of proof lies with the employer, and failure to meet this burden results in an unjustified dismissal, entitling the employee to reinstatement and backwages.

    The Court scrutinized the evidence presented by the clinic, finding it lacking in probative value. The handwritten listings and unsigned computer print-outs were deemed unreliable and inadmissible. The Court cited the case of IBM Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 305 SCRA 592 (1999), clarifying that while administrative actions allow for procedural flexibility, they cannot disregard fundamental rules of evidence. The Court stated:

    “However, the liberality of procedure in administrative actions is subject to limitations imposed by basic requirements of due process. As this Court said in Ang Tibay v. CIR, the provision for flexibility in administrative procedure “does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative value.””

    The absence of authenticated documents and the unexplained non-presentation of the record book were critical to the Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of the best evidence rule, which requires parties to present the most reliable evidence available. The clinic’s failure to produce the record book, which was the basis for the charges against Asuncion, raised suspicions that the evidence would have been unfavorable to their case. Further, in the case of Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply, Inc. v. NLRC, 266 SCRA 97 (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that unsigned daily time records were not competent to prove an employee’s neglect of duty. The court said:

    “Indeed, the DTRs annexed to the present petition would tend to establish private respondent’s neglectful attitude towards his work duties as shown by repeated and habitual absences and tardiness and propensity for working undertime for the year 1992. But the problem with these DTRs is that they are neither originals nor certified true copies. They are plain photocopies of the originals, if the latter do exist. More importantly, they are not even signed by private respondent nor by any of the employer’s representatives. x x x.”

    Regarding the NLRC’s reliance on Asuncion’s letter as an admission of absences, the Court clarified that the letter merely explained that the alleged absences occurred on Saturdays, which, according to Asuncion, were not part of her work schedule due to an agreement with the clinic. The clinic failed to refute this claim, undermining the basis for the NLRC’s decision. The Court also noted the lack of prior warnings or reprimands for Asuncion’s alleged absences and tardiness.

    In addition, the Court found the two-day period given to Asuncion to respond to the charges unreasonable, considering the numerous offenses and the lack of specificity in the accusations. The Court cited Ruffy v. NLRC, 182 SCRA 365, 369-370 (1990), emphasizing that employees must be given ample opportunity and assistance to prepare their defense. The totality of circumstances indicated that Asuncion was not afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the charges against her.

    Given the doubts surrounding the evidence and the lack of due process, the Supreme Court resolved the ambiguities in favor of Asuncion, in line with the Labor Code’s policy of protecting labor. The Court cited Articles 3 and 4 of the Labor Code:

    ART. 3. Declaration of basic policy. – The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers and employers. x x x [Emphasis supplied].

    ART. 4. Construction in favor of labor. – All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

    The consistent rule is that doubts between the evidence of the employer and the employee must be resolved in favor of the latter, requiring the employer to affirmatively demonstrate a justifiable cause for dismissal. As the clinic failed to satisfy this burden, the Court concluded that Asuncion’s termination was illegal, entitling her to reinstatement and backwages. The ruling serves as a strong reminder of the stringent requirements for lawful employee dismissal and the importance of upholding due process rights.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Ester Asuncion’s dismissal from Mabini Medical Clinic was legal, considering the evidence presented by the clinic and the due process afforded to Asuncion. The Supreme Court examined whether the clinic had just cause for dismissal and if Asuncion was given a fair opportunity to defend herself.
    What evidence did the clinic present to justify the dismissal? The clinic presented handwritten listings and computer print-outs to prove Asuncion’s absenteeism and tardiness. However, these documents were unsigned and unauthenticated, leading the Labor Arbiter and Supreme Court to question their reliability and probative value.
    Why was the absence of the record book significant? The record book was significant because it was referenced in the termination notice as the basis for Asuncion’s alleged offenses. The clinic’s failure to present this book, which was in their possession, raised doubts about the validity of their claims, as it was considered the best evidence available.
    How did the Supreme Court interpret Asuncion’s letter? The Supreme Court interpreted Asuncion’s letter not as an admission of guilt, but as an explanation that her alleged absences occurred on Saturdays, which she claimed were not part of her work schedule. The clinic failed to refute this claim, weakening their case.
    What does ‘due process’ mean in the context of employee dismissal? In the context of employee dismissal, ‘due process’ means that the employer must provide the employee with a fair opportunity to be heard and defend themselves against accusations. This includes informing the employee of the charges, allowing them to respond, and considering their response before making a decision.
    What is the burden of proof in dismissal cases? The burden of proof in dismissal cases lies with the employer. The employer must provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Failure to meet this burden results in an unjustified dismissal.
    What is the significance of Articles 3 and 4 of the Labor Code? Articles 3 and 4 of the Labor Code emphasize the State’s protection of labor and mandate that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the Code be resolved in favor of labor. These provisions reflect the policy of promoting social justice and protecting the rights of workers.
    What was the final ruling in this case? The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC’s decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, declaring Asuncion’s dismissal illegal. The Court ordered the clinic to reinstate Asuncion to her former position without loss of seniority and to pay her backwages and other benefits.

    This case underscores the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to due process in employee dismissal cases. Employers must ensure they have sufficient, credible evidence to support their claims and provide employees with a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the protection afforded to workers under the Labor Code, emphasizing that doubts are to be resolved in favor of labor.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Ester M. Asuncion v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129329, July 31, 2001

  • Waiver of Cross-Examination: Impact on Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence

    The Supreme Court, in this case, clarifies that failure to object to hearsay evidence during trial makes it admissible, especially when the opportunity to cross-examine the witness presenting the hearsay was repeatedly waived. This ruling emphasizes the importance of actively participating in court proceedings and asserting one’s rights promptly, as the right to cross-examine a witness, which ensures the reliability of evidence, can be forfeited if not exercised. It sets a precedent that inactions during trial can significantly affect the outcome by allowing otherwise inadmissible evidence to be considered, highlighting the need for diligence in legal representation.

    Lost Opportunity: Can Silence Validate Hearsay in Contractual Disputes?

    This case revolves around a loan obtained by SCC Chemicals Corporation from State Investment House Inc. (SIHI). When SCC defaulted, SIHI sued to recover the amount. SCC contested the claim, arguing that SIHI’s evidence was insufficient and based on hearsay. The central legal issue arose because SCC repeatedly failed to cross-examine SIHI’s witness during the trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of SIHI. The Supreme Court then reviewed whether the appellate court erred in admitting SIHI’s evidence and awarding attorney’s fees.

    The petitioner, SCC Chemicals, argued that SIHI’s evidence was inadmissible as it violated the hearsay rule. They based their argument on Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, stating that a witness must testify from personal knowledge. However, the court emphasized that even if evidence is hearsay, it becomes admissible if the opposing party fails to object to its presentation. The rationale is rooted in the right to cross-examination, a critical tool for testing the veracity of evidence. Repeatedly missing opportunities to cross-examine implies a waiver of this right. In this context, SCC’s failure to cross-examine SIHI’s witness on several scheduled dates amounted to an implied waiver, preventing them from later challenging the admissibility of the testimony.

    Furthermore, SCC contended that the genuineness of the documentary evidence was not adequately proven. They claimed that the signatures on the documents were neither marked nor formally offered as evidence. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that SCC had already admitted the execution of the promissory note in the pre-trial stipulation of facts. Such admissions during pre-trial are considered judicial admissions, which, according to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, do not require further proof. Judicial admissions are conclusive and binding on the party making them, relieving the opposing party from the need to present additional evidence on the admitted facts. This procedural rule played a pivotal role in the court’s decision.

    Moreover, the Court addressed SCC’s invocation of the best evidence rule, stating that the original documents were not presented. It highlighted that the judicial admission of the execution of the promissory note negated the necessity for SIHI to present the originals. Because SCC admitted the existence and execution of the documents, their authenticity was no longer in question. This strategic concession bound SCC to its prior statement. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith, according to Article 1159 of the Civil Code.

    Regarding attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court sided with SCC. The Court reiterated that the award of attorney’s fees is an exception rather than the rule. The trial court must provide factual and legal justifications for such an award. Because the trial court failed to explicitly state the rationale for awarding attorney’s fees to SIHI, the Supreme Court deemed the award inappropriate and deleted it from the judgment. This demonstrates the importance of articulating the basis for attorney’s fees in court decisions to ensure transparency and fairness.

    In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision hinged on procedural lapses and judicial admissions made by SCC Chemicals. The failure to cross-examine SIHI’s witness, combined with the pre-trial admission of the promissory note’s execution, proved critical in upholding SCC’s liability. While the court affirmed SCC’s obligation to pay the loan, it also reinforced the principle that attorney’s fees must be justified with specific findings of fact and law.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s decision, considering SCC Chemicals’ claims regarding hearsay evidence and lack of proof of document authenticity.
    What is hearsay evidence, and when is it admissible? Hearsay is testimony not based on personal knowledge. It is generally inadmissible unless the opposing party fails to object to it, thereby waiving the right to challenge its admissibility.
    What is a judicial admission, and what is its effect on a case? A judicial admission is a statement made by a party during court proceedings. It does not require further proof and is binding on the party making it.
    What is the best evidence rule, and how does it apply here? The best evidence rule requires original documents to be presented. However, it does not apply when the existence and execution of the document are judicially admitted by the opposing party.
    When can attorney’s fees be awarded in a legal case? Attorney’s fees are an exception rather than the rule. They require explicit factual and legal justification by the trial court, which was lacking in this case.
    What does it mean to waive the right to cross-examine a witness? Waiving the right to cross-examine means giving up the opportunity to question a witness, thus potentially accepting the witness’s testimony as valid.
    What happens if a party fails to object to certain evidence during trial? If a party fails to object to evidence, the evidence may be admitted, even if it would otherwise be inadmissible under the rules of evidence.
    How did the court use Article 1159 of the Civil Code in this case? The court invoked Article 1159, emphasizing that contractual obligations have the force of law and must be complied with in good faith, thus reinforcing SCC’s duty to pay the loan.

    This case underscores the importance of active participation and diligence in legal proceedings. Failing to assert one’s rights, such as the right to cross-examine witnesses or object to inadmissible evidence, can have significant repercussions on the outcome of a case. While contractual obligations must be fulfilled, the award of attorney’s fees requires specific justification by the courts.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SCC Chemicals Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128538, February 28, 2001

  • Unwritten Agreements & Inheritance: Why Formal Deeds Matter in Philippine Property Law

    Verbal Partition Agreements in Inheritance Disputes: Why They Don’t Hold Up in Philippine Courts

    TLDR: This case underscores the critical importance of formal, written documentation in property inheritance and partition in the Philippines. Verbal agreements or implied understandings, especially concerning valuable real estate, are extremely difficult to prove and enforce in court. Family members must ensure all property transfers and partitions are properly documented in legally sound deeds to avoid future disputes and protect their inheritance rights.

    G.R. No. 139524, October 12, 2000

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine inheriting property, only to have your claim challenged years later based on a supposed decades-old verbal agreement. This is the predicament Ladislao Santos faced in this Supreme Court case, highlighting a common pitfall in Philippine inheritance law: relying on informal, undocumented agreements among family members. In the Philippines, where family ties are strong but land disputes are rife, this case serves as a stark reminder that when it comes to inheriting and partitioning property, especially land, oral agreements simply don’t cut it. This case revolves around a parcel of land in Rizal, inherited by two brothers, Ladislao and Eliseo, from their sister Isidra. The central legal question? Whether an alleged verbal partition agreement, purported to have occurred decades prior, could supersede the legal rights of one brother to his rightful share of the inherited property.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND CO-OWNERSHIP INHERITANCE

    Philippine law is very clear on how evidence is presented and what types of evidence are given more weight in court. The ‘Best Evidence Rule,’ enshrined in Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, dictates that the original document itself must be presented when the content of a document is the subject of inquiry. Secondary evidence, like testimonies about a document’s contents, is only admissible under specific exceptions, such as the loss or destruction of the original document, and only when certain conditions are met to prove its reliability.

    In inheritance law, when a person dies intestate (without a will), their legal heirs automatically become co-owners of the inherited estate. Article 494 of the Civil Code is crucial here, stating: “No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.” This means that for a co-owner to claim exclusive ownership through prescription (acquiring ownership through long-term possession), they must unequivocally repudiate the co-ownership, making it clear to the other co-owners that they are claiming the property as solely their own. This repudiation must be open, notorious, and continuous for the period required by law for prescription to set in.

    Furthermore, actions for partition among co-owners are generally imprescriptible. This means there is no statute of limitations, and a co-owner can demand partition at any time, unless prescription has validly occurred after a clear and proven repudiation of co-ownership.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE BATTLE OVER ISIDRA’S LAND

    The story begins with Isidra Santos, who owned a piece of land in San Mateo, Rizal. Upon her death in 1967, without a will or children, her brothers Ladislao and Eliseo became her legal heirs and co-owners of this property. Years later, in 1993, Ladislao, residing in the US, discovered that the tax declarations for Isidra’s land were now under the name of Philip Santos, Eliseo’s son. This prompted Ladislao, through his attorney-in-fact, to file a case for judicial partition against Eliseo and Philip.

    Here’s a step-by-step look at the case’s journey through the courts:

    1. Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision: The RTC initially dismissed Ladislao’s complaint. The court sided with Eliseo and Philip, accepting their claim of a verbal “Combined Deed of Partition” from 1969. They argued that in this partition, Isidra’s property was supposedly given entirely to Eliseo, who then transferred it to his son Virgilio, and eventually to Philip. The RTC also considered acquisitive prescription in favor of Philip, given the years that had passed.
    2. Court of Appeals (CA) Reversal: Ladislao appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC decision. The CA emphasized the Best Evidence Rule. Eliseo and Philip failed to produce the original or even a copy of the alleged “Combined Deed of Partition.” Testimonial evidence alone was deemed insufficient to prove such a crucial document, especially concerning real property. The CA also found no clear evidence of repudiation of co-ownership by Eliseo that would have started the prescriptive period.
    3. Supreme Court (SC) Affirmation: Philip and Eliseo (through Eliseo’s heirs after his death) then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, firmly reiterating the importance of the Best Evidence Rule and the necessity of clear proof for repudiation of co-ownership.

    The Supreme Court highlighted the lack of any written deed to support the claim of partition. “We agree with the Court of Appeals that only the original document is the best evidence of the fact as to whether the brothers Ladislao and Eliseo Santos executed a Combined Deed of Partition wherein the entire property of Isidra Santos was conveyed to Eliseo. In the absence of such document, petitioners’ arguments regarding said partition must fail.”

    Furthermore, the Court dismissed the argument of acquisitive prescription. It found no concrete evidence that Eliseo had ever clearly communicated to Ladislao a repudiation of their co-ownership. The Court noted, “There is no showing that Eliseo Santos had complied with these requisites [of repudiation]. We are not convinced that Eliseo had repudiated the co-ownership, and even if he did, there is no showing that the same had been clearly made known to Ladislao.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed Ladislao’s right to his share of Isidra’s property and ordered the Regional Trial Court to proceed with the judicial partition.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR INHERITANCE

    This case offers critical lessons for anyone dealing with inheritance in the Philippines, particularly concerning real property. Firstly, verbal agreements about land ownership are extremely risky. Philippine courts prioritize documentary evidence. Memories fade, and interpretations of verbal agreements can differ drastically over time, especially within families. Secondly, inaction can be costly. While actions for partition are imprescriptible, allowing decades to pass without formalizing property ownership creates significant vulnerability to disputes and complications.

    Key Lessons:

    • Document Everything: Always formalize property agreements, especially partitions and transfers, in writing through legally sound deeds prepared and notarized by a lawyer. This is non-negotiable for real estate.
    • Don’t Rely on Verbal Understandings: No matter how strong family relationships are, verbal agreements regarding property are weak and difficult to enforce legally.
    • Act Promptly on Inheritance: As soon as possible after inheriting property, take steps to formally settle the estate and partition or transfer titles. Delay increases the risk of disputes and legal battles.
    • Understand Co-ownership: If you inherit property with siblings or other relatives, understand your rights and obligations as co-owners. Open communication and formal agreements are essential to manage co-owned property effectively and prevent future conflicts.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a lawyer specializing in estate and property law to guide you through inheritance processes, property partition, and documentation requirements.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: Is a verbal agreement to partition land valid in the Philippines?

    A: While verbal agreements can be binding for certain contracts, they are highly problematic, especially for real estate. Philippine courts strongly prefer documentary evidence for land ownership and transfer. For practical and legal purposes, verbal partition agreements for land are generally unenforceable and not advisable.

    Q: What is the Best Evidence Rule, and how did it apply in this case?

    A: The Best Evidence Rule states that the original document is required to prove its contents. In this case, the alleged “Combined Deed of Partition” was central to the defense, but the defendants couldn’t produce it. The court correctly applied the Best Evidence Rule, rejecting testimonial evidence as insufficient in the absence of the original document or proper proof of its loss.

    Q: What is acquisitive prescription in property law?

    A: Acquisitive prescription is acquiring ownership of property through continuous, open, and notorious possession for a period defined by law. For ordinary acquisitive prescription, it’s ten years with just title and good faith; for extraordinary prescription, it’s thirty years without needing just title or good faith.

    Q: How does co-ownership affect prescription?

    A: Prescription does not run between co-owners unless there is a clear repudiation of co-ownership communicated to the other co-owners. Possession by one co-owner is generally considered to benefit all co-owners unless there is an unequivocal act of adverse possession and exclusion of other co-owners.

    Q: What should I do if I inherit property with siblings?

    A: Immediately start the process of estate settlement. Consult with a lawyer to understand the legal procedures. Discuss partition options with your siblings and aim to reach a formal, written partition agreement. Properly document and register any transfer of ownership to avoid future disputes.

    Q: Is it always necessary to go to court for property partition?

    A: No. If all co-owners agree, they can execute an extrajudicial partition, which is simpler and faster than judicial partition. However, if there’s disagreement, judicial partition through the courts becomes necessary.

    Q: What is laches, and why didn’t it apply in this case?

    A: Laches is the equitable doctrine that bars relief when a party unreasonably delays asserting a right, causing prejudice to the opposing party. While raised by the petitioners, the court correctly held that laches does not bar actions for partition among co-owners, as the right to demand partition is generally imprescriptible.

    Q: What kind of lawyer should I consult for inheritance issues?

    A: You should consult with a lawyer specializing in estate law, inheritance law, or property law. They can advise you on estate settlement, property partition, and represent you in any related legal proceedings.

    ASG Law specializes in Real Estate and Family Law in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Winning Your Case with Evidence: Understanding Document Admissibility in Philippine Courts

    Evidence Essentials: How to Ensure Your Documents Stand Up in Philippine Courts

    n

    TLDR: In Philippine courts, presenting solid evidence is key to winning your case. This case clarifies that while original documents are preferred, photocopies can be admissible if the originals were presented in court. It also highlights that testimony from a knowledgeable employee can authenticate company records, even without the preparer’s direct testimony. Businesses should focus on proper record-keeping and ensure their witnesses can effectively present evidence.

    nn

    G.R. No. 122648, August 17, 2000

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine a business deal gone sour. Invoices are unpaid, and legal action becomes necessary. But what happens when the crucial documents – the invoices themselves – are challenged in court as inadmissible? This scenario is far from hypothetical. In the Philippines, as in any jurisdiction, the admissibility of evidence can make or break a case. The Supreme Court case of W-Red Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Asia Industries, Inc. provides valuable insights into the rules of evidence, particularly concerning documentary proof and witness testimony in commercial disputes. This case underscores the practical realities of presenting evidence and what businesses must do to ensure their claims are properly substantiated in court.

    n

    W-Red Construction purchased electrical equipment from Asia Industries but failed to pay the full amount. Asia Industries sued to recover the debt, presenting sales invoices as evidence. W-Red contested the invoices, arguing they were inadmissible photocopies and improperly authenticated. The central legal question became: Under Philippine rules of evidence, were the photocopied sales invoices and the statement of account admissible to prove W-Red’s debt?

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: PHILIPPINE RULES ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

    n

    Philippine law, specifically the Rules of Court, governs the admissibility of evidence. Documentary evidence, like sales invoices, is crucial in commercial disputes. The core principle is the Best Evidence Rule, enshrined in Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which states: “Original document must be produced; exceptions. — Original document must be produced when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no other evidence being admissible except in the following cases…” This rule generally requires the original document to be presented in court when proving its contents.

    n

    However, the law recognizes practical exceptions. Rule 130, Section 5 outlines when secondary evidence, like photocopies, may be admissible: “When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror, secondary evidence may be presented.” Furthermore, even if photocopies are admitted, their authenticity and due execution must still be proven. This is where authentication and identification of documents by witnesses become critical, as covered by Rule 132, Section 20: “Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.”

    n

    These rules aim to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of evidence presented in court. Past Supreme Court jurisprudence, such as in Heirs of Teodoro Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, emphasizes that admissibility should not be confused with probative value. Admissibility is about whether evidence can be considered by the court, while probative value is about how much weight that evidence carries in proving a fact.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: W-RED CONSTRUCTION VS. ASIA INDUSTRIES

    n

    Asia Industries, seeking to collect unpaid debts from W-Red Construction, presented eighteen sales invoices and a statement of account as evidence. W-Red contested these documents, arguing they were mere photocopies and not properly authenticated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sided with Asia Industries, ordering W-Red to pay the outstanding balance. W-Red appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), reiterating their objections to the evidence. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, leading W-Red to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    n

    The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the records. W-Red’s main argument was that the sales invoices (Exhibits

  • The Perils of Photocopies: Evidence Standards in Attorney Disciplinary Cases

    In Danilo M. Concepcion v. Atty. Daniel P. Fandiño, Jr., the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that disbarment complaints against lawyers must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, with original documents being preferred over photocopies. The Court emphasized that in disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and the failure to present original documents undermines the credibility of the accusations. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the best evidence rule, ensuring fairness and protecting lawyers from unsubstantiated claims of misconduct.

    When a Bitter Commission Dispute Becomes a Battle Over Evidence

    The case began with a complaint filed by Danilo M. Concepcion against Atty. Daniel P. Fandiño, Jr., accusing the lawyer of gross misconduct, deceit, and malpractice. Concepcion claimed that Fandiño notarized several documents without proper authorization as a notary public. Specifically, the complaint detailed instances in 1987 and 1989 where Fandiño allegedly notarized deeds of sale, despite certifications from the Clerk of Court indicating he was not commissioned as a notary public during those years. The dispute stemmed from a real estate transaction where Concepcion believed he was entitled to a larger commission, leading to civil and criminal suits against Fandiño, which were eventually dismissed.

    Fandiño denied the allegations, arguing that the complaint was a pressure tactic to extract money from him. He claimed that the documents presented by Concepcion were falsified and that Concepcion had filed multiple cases based on the same allegations, constituting forum shopping. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and recommended the dismissal of the complaint, citing a lack of merit and questioning the authenticity of the evidence presented by Concepcion. The IBP’s investigating commissioner noted that the documents submitted were mere photocopies, not certified true copies, and their source was not adequately established.

    The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s recommendation. The Court emphasized that in disbarment proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proof. As such, the evidence presented must be clear, convincing, and satisfactory to warrant disciplinary action. Quoting Martin v. Felix, the Court reiterated its conservative approach to disbarment cases:

    Significantly, this Court has, time and again, declared a conservative and cautious approach to disbarment proceedings like the instant case. . . .

    In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.

    Building on this principle, the Court found that Concepcion failed to provide original copies of the allegedly notarized documents. The general rule, as stated in Intestate Estate of the Late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals, is that photocopies are inadmissible and have no probative value. This is rooted in the **Best Evidence Rule**, which requires that the original document be presented as evidence unless it can be shown that the original is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable.

    The Court acknowledged that disciplinary proceedings are *sui generis*, but emphasized that the rules of evidence cannot be disregarded, especially when the lawyer’s professional standing is at stake. The Court noted that Concepcion’s motives were suspect, considering his inability to account for the source of the documents and Fandiño’s allegation of harassment and blackmail. Furthermore, the dismissal of the criminal complaints for usurpation of official functions, due to the failure to produce original documents, further weakened Concepcion’s case.

    To provide a clearer understanding of the evidence standards applied in this case, the following table summarizes the key differences between admissible and inadmissible evidence:

    Admissible Evidence Inadmissible Evidence
    Original documents Photocopies (unless original is proven unavailable)
    Certified true copies (under certain conditions) Unauthenticated documents
    Testimony from parties involved in the document’s execution Hearsay evidence

    Finally, the Court addressed Concepcion’s motions to hold IBP Commissioner Benjamin Bernardino in contempt for allegedly delaying the case. The Court found no evidence of malice or bad faith in the reassignment of the case among different IBP commissioners. Therefore, the motion for contempt was also denied.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the disbarment complaint against Atty. Fandiño could be sustained based on the evidence presented by Concepcion, particularly given the lack of original documents.
    Why were the photocopies of the documents not considered as valid evidence? Photocopies are generally inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule, which requires the presentation of original documents unless the original is proven to be lost, destroyed, or unavailable. In this case, Concepcion did not provide sufficient proof that the originals were unavailable.
    What is the standard of proof required in disbarment cases? Disbarment cases require clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof to warrant disciplinary action against a lawyer. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant.
    What does *sui generis* mean in the context of disciplinary proceedings? *Sui generis* means “of its own kind” or unique. In the context of disciplinary proceedings, it means that these proceedings are neither civil nor criminal actions, but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers.
    What is the Best Evidence Rule? The Best Evidence Rule requires that the original document be presented as evidence to prove its contents. Photocopies or secondary evidence are only admissible if the original is unavailable due to loss, destruction, or other valid reasons.
    What was the role of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in this case? The IBP investigated the complaint against Atty. Fandiño and submitted a report and recommendation to the Supreme Court. In this case, the IBP recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
    Why was the motion for contempt against IBP Commissioner Bernardino denied? The motion was denied because there was no evidence of malice or bad faith on the part of Commissioner Bernardino in the handling of the case. The reassignment of the case was due to retirement or resignation from office, not a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings.
    What was the significance of the criminal complaints filed by Concepcion? The dismissal of the criminal complaints for usurpation of official functions, due to the failure to produce original documents, further weakened Concepcion’s case and supported the Court’s decision to dismiss the disbarment complaint.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the critical importance of adhering to evidentiary standards in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. It protects attorneys from frivolous or unsubstantiated claims and ensures that any disciplinary action is based on solid, credible evidence. This ruling serves as a reminder that while disciplinary proceedings are unique, they must still respect fundamental principles of evidence and fairness.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: DANILO M. CONCEPCION VS. ATTY. DANIEL P. FANDIÑO, JR., A.C. No. 3677, June 21, 2000

  • Philippine Land Registration: Why Imperfect Titles Need Perfect Proof

    Securing Your Land Title: The Imperative of Evidence in Imperfect Title Cases

    TLDR: In Philippine land registration, especially for imperfect titles, possessing the land isn’t enough. This case underscores that applicants must present solid, primary evidence of ownership and meticulously prove land identity. Secondary evidence and tax declarations alone often fall short. If you’re seeking to confirm an imperfect land title, be prepared to substantiate your claim with robust documentation and witness testimonies; otherwise, your application might face rejection, highlighting the stringent evidentiary standards upheld by Philippine courts.

    G.R. No. 120066, September 09, 1999: OCTABELA ALBA VDA. DE RAZ, SPOUSES MANUEL AND SUSANA BRAULIO, RODOLFO, LOURDES AND BEATRIZ ALL SURNAMED ALBA, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND JOSE LACHICA, RESPONDENTS.

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine owning land for decades, believing it’s rightfully yours, only to face a legal battle that questions your very claim. This is the stark reality for many Filipinos dealing with imperfect land titles. In the Philippines, where land ownership can be complex and deeply rooted in history, the case of Octabela Alba Vda. De Raz v. Court of Appeals serves as a critical reminder: possessing land is just the first step. This case highlights the rigorous evidentiary standards required to convert long-held possession into a legally recognized and unassailable land title.

    The heart of the matter revolves around Jose Lachica’s application to register a 4,845 square meter parcel of land. His claim, based on alleged purchases dating back to the 1940s and continuous possession, was challenged by the Alba family, who asserted ownership over significant portions of the same land. The ensuing legal saga, winding its way through the trial court and the Court of Appeals, ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where the importance of concrete evidence in land registration cases was definitively underscored.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: Imperfect Titles and the Regalian Doctrine

    Philippine property law is significantly shaped by the Regalian Doctrine, a principle holding that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. This doctrine, inherited from Spanish colonial rule and enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, dictates that private land ownership must be traced back to a grant from the government. For individuals claiming ownership of land that hasn’t been formally titled, they often seek judicial confirmation of an “imperfect title.”

    The legal basis for confirming these titles is primarily found in Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act. Section 48(b) of this Act, at the time of the case, allowed Filipino citizens who have been in “open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title” to seek judicial confirmation. This provision essentially acknowledges acquisitive prescription as a pathway to land ownership, provided stringent conditions are met.

    Crucially, the law distinguishes between public and private land. Act No. 496, or the Land Registration Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), governs the registration of private lands already owned in fee simple. However, for public lands, especially agricultural lands, the process is governed by the Public Land Act. The burden of proof in these cases is substantial, resting heavily on the applicant to demonstrate not only possession but also the alienable and disposable nature of the land and the fulfillment of all legal requirements for title confirmation.

    Central to this case is the concept of evidence. Philippine law adheres to the best evidence rule, prioritizing original documents. Secondary evidence, like photocopies or witness testimonies about lost documents, is only admissible under specific circumstances outlined in the Rules of Evidence. Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence states these conditions:

    “Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses, in the order stated.”

    This rule becomes particularly relevant when applicants, like Mr. Lachica, rely on lost deeds of sale to prove their acquisition of the land.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: Lachica’s Claim Falters on Evidence

    Jose Lachica initiated a land registration case in 1958, claiming ownership based on purchases dating back to 1940-1941. He asserted acquiring the land from three sources: Faustino Martirez (840 sqm), Eulalio Raz (300 sqm), and Eufrocino Alba (3,725 sqm). Crucially, while Lachica presented a deed of sale from Faustino Martirez, the alleged deeds from Raz and Alba were missing, purportedly lost.

    The Alba family opposed Lachica’s application, asserting their own long-standing claims to portions of the land, inherited from their predecessors. Octabela Alba Vda. de Raz, representing herself and her co-heirs, presented documentary evidence detailing land transactions involving Dionisia Regado, the original owner, and subsequent transfers to Eulalio Raz and Eufrocino Alba – the very individuals from whom Lachica claimed to have purchased portions of the land.

    The trial court initially ruled in favor of Lachica, confirming his title. The court gave weight to Lachica’s tax declarations and payments, and accepted his secondary evidence regarding the lost deeds. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, echoing the trial court’s reliance on secondary evidence and acquisitive prescription. However, the Supreme Court reversed these rulings, meticulously dissecting the evidence and highlighting critical flaws in Lachica’s case.

    The Supreme Court pointed out several key evidentiary weaknesses:

    1. Insufficient Proof of Lost Deeds: While Lachica claimed the deeds from Raz and Alba were lost, the Court found the secondary evidence presented – primarily Lachica’s testimony and that of a treasurer’s office clerk – insufficient to convincingly prove the existence, due execution, and loss of these crucial documents.
    2. Discrepancies in Land Identity: Significant discrepancies emerged between the land described in Lachica’s tax declarations and the land he claimed to have purchased from Eufrocino Alba. The tax declaration described “palayero” (rice land), while the alleged purchase was “cocal secano” (dry coconut land). Area and boundary descriptions also differed markedly, casting serious doubt on whether they were the same property.
    3. Tax Declaration Anomalies: The Court noted a suspicious “geometric ballooning” of the land area in Lachica’s tax declarations. Starting from a consistent 620 square meters in earlier declarations, it suddenly jumped to 4,845 square meters in 1956, shortly before the land registration application. This revision, based on Lachica’s self-serving affidavit, raised red flags about the reliability of his tax declarations as proof of ownership for the entire claimed area.
    4. Inapplicability of Prescription: The Supreme Court clarified that while acquisitive prescription can lead to ownership, it requires “just title and good faith” for ordinary prescription (10 years) or “uninterrupted adverse possession” for extraordinary prescription (30 years). The Court found Lachica’s possession, even if proven, lacked the necessary “just title” for ordinary prescription and fell short of the 30-year period for extraordinary prescription. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that possession of public land, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership without a clear grant from the State.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of primary evidence and the stringent requirements for admitting secondary evidence. In its decision, the Court stated:

    “. . . [A] contract of sale of realty cannot be proven by means of witnesses, but must necessarily be evidenced by a written instrument, duly subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent, or by secondary evidence of their contents. No other evidence, therefore, can be received except the documentary evidence referred to, in so far as regards such contracts, and these are valueless as evidence unless they are drawn up in writing in the manner aforesaid.”

    The Court further stressed the applicant’s burden to prove land identity:

    “An applicant for registration of land, if he relies on a document evidencing his title thereto, must prove not only the genuineness of his title but the identity of the land therein referred to. The document in such a case is either a basis of his claim for registration or not at all. If , as in this case, he only claims a portion of what is included in his title, he must clearly prove that the property sought to be registered is included in that title.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court partially reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. It confirmed Lachica’s title only to the undisputed 620 square meter portion, remanding the case to the trial court for further evidence from the Alba family regarding their claims to the remaining land.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Lessons for Landowners and Buyers

    Octabela Alba Vda. De Raz v. Court of Appeals provides critical lessons for anyone involved in land ownership and registration in the Philippines:

    • Prioritize Primary Evidence: Original deeds of sale, donation, inheritance documents, and official government grants are paramount. Keep these documents safe and accessible.
    • Meticulous Record-Keeping is Key: Maintain organized records of all land-related documents, tax declarations, and payment receipts. These records are crucial for establishing a strong claim of ownership.
    • Land Identity is Non-Negotiable: Ensure that all documents accurately and consistently describe the land’s location, boundaries, and area. Discrepancies can severely undermine your claim. Professional surveys and technical descriptions are often necessary.
    • Tax Declarations are Supporting, Not Primary, Evidence: While tax declarations and payments demonstrate possession and claim of ownership, they are not conclusive proof of title. They must be corroborated by stronger forms of evidence.
    • Seek Legal Counsel Early: Navigating land registration, especially for imperfect titles, is complex. Consulting a lawyer specializing in property law early in the process can help avoid costly mistakes and strengthen your application.

    Key Lessons:

    • Evidence is King: In land registration cases, especially for imperfect titles, the quality and strength of your evidence are decisive.
    • Document Everything: Maintain meticulous records of all land-related transactions and documents.
    • Accuracy Matters: Ensure consistency and accuracy in land descriptions across all documents.
    • Don’t Rely Solely on Possession: Long-term possession alone is insufficient to secure a land title. It must be coupled with solid documentary evidence and fulfillment of legal requirements.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is an imperfect title in the Philippines?

    A: An imperfect title refers to a claim of private ownership on public land that has not yet been formally confirmed and registered by the government. These titles often arise from long-term possession and occupation but require judicial confirmation to be legally recognized.

    Q2: What is the Regalian Doctrine and how does it affect land ownership?

    A: The Regalian Doctrine states that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. This means private land ownership must be derived from a government grant. It places the burden on claimants to prove their title originates from the State.

    Q3: Can I get a land title just by possessing the land for many years?

    A: While long-term possession is a factor, it’s not sufficient on its own. Under the Public Land Act, you need to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of agricultural public land for at least 30 years under a bona fide claim of ownership, and this possession must be proven with strong evidence.

    Q4: What kind of evidence is considered “primary evidence” for land registration?

    A: Primary evidence includes original documents like deeds of sale, donation, inheritance documents, Spanish titles (if applicable), and official government grants. These are the most reliable forms of proof of ownership.

    Q5: Are tax declarations and tax payments enough to prove land ownership?

    A: No. Tax declarations and payments are considered secondary evidence. They can support a claim of ownership by demonstrating possession and claim of title, but they are not conclusive proof of ownership and must be supported by primary evidence.

    Q6: What happens if my original land documents are lost?

    A: You can present secondary evidence, but you must first convincingly prove the loss or destruction of the original documents without bad faith on your part. Acceptable secondary evidence includes copies, recitals in authentic documents, or witness testimonies, in that order of preference. The court will scrutinize secondary evidence carefully.

    Q7: What is judicial confirmation of an imperfect title?

    A: It’s a legal process where you apply to the court to formally recognize and confirm your claim of ownership over public land based on long-term possession and fulfillment of legal requirements. If successful, the court will issue a decree that can be registered, granting you a Torrens title.

    ASG Law specializes in Property Law and Land Registration. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Lost Your Marriage Certificate? Philippine Supreme Court Clarifies How to Prove Marriage and Adoption with Secondary Evidence

    Proving Marriage and Adoption When Documents are Lost: Secondary Evidence in Philippine Courts

    It’s a common worry: what happens if crucial documents like a marriage certificate or adoption papers go missing? Can you still legally prove these life-altering events? The Philippine Supreme Court, in the case of Tomasa Vda. De Jacob vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999), provides crucial guidance. This landmark decision clarifies that while original documents are preferred, the loss of such documents doesn’t leave you without legal recourse. Marriage and adoption can still be established through secondary evidence, provided you can convincingly demonstrate the original document’s existence, its proper execution, and its subsequent loss or destruction. This case is a beacon of hope for individuals facing similar evidentiary challenges, assuring them that justice is still within reach even when primary documents are unavailable.

    G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine needing to prove your marriage or your child’s adoption, only to find that the official documents are nowhere to be found. This isn’t just a hypothetical scenario; it’s a real-life legal predicament that many Filipinos face. In the case of Tomasa Vda. De Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court tackled this very issue head-on. Tomasa Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of the deceased Alfredo Jacob and sought to administer his estate based on a reconstructed marriage contract. However, her claim was challenged by Pedro Pilapil, who asserted his right to inherit as Alfredo’s legally adopted son, presenting an adoption order. The core legal question became: In the absence of original marriage and adoption documents, can secondary evidence sufficiently prove these legal relationships?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND ITS EXCEPTIONS

    Philippine law, like many legal systems, adheres to the Best Evidence Rule. This rule, enshrined in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, dictates that when the content of a document is the subject of inquiry, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself. The rationale is simple: original documents are the most reliable source of information and minimize the risk of fraud or error.

    However, the law recognizes that life is imperfect, and documents can be lost, destroyed, or become unavailable. Therefore, Section 3 and Section 5 of Rule 130 carve out crucial exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule. Section 5 states:

    “When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses, in the order stated.”

    This means that secondary evidence – copies, testimonies, or recitals in other documents – can be admitted if the proponent can establish two key facts: (1) the due execution of the original document and (2) its subsequent loss, destruction, or unavailability without bad faith. “Due execution” means proving that the document was properly signed and executed according to legal requirements.

    In the context of marriage, the Family Code (and previously the Civil Code, applicable in this case) requires specific formalities for valid marriage. However, even without a marriage license, marriages are recognized under Article 76 of the Civil Code if a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage, provided they execute an affidavit stating these facts. This is crucial in the Jacob case, as the marriage was claimed to be solemnized under this exception.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: JACOB VS. COURT OF APPEALS

    The legal battle began when Tomasa Jacob, claiming to be Alfredo Jacob’s widow, initiated estate proceedings. Pedro Pilapil intervened, asserting his rights as Alfredo’s adopted son and sole heir, challenging the validity of Tomasa’s marriage. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sided with Pilapil, declaring Tomasa’s reconstructed marriage contract spurious and upholding Pilapil’s adoption based on an adoption order from 1961. The RTC favored the handwriting expert presented by Pilapil who affirmed the genuineness of Judge Moya’s signature on the adoption order, over Tomasa’s expert who claimed forgery, and even disregarded Judge Moya’s own deposition casting doubt on the signature’s authenticity.

    Tomasa appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto, emphasizing the Best Evidence Rule and faulting Tomasa for not sufficiently proving the due execution and loss of the original marriage contract. The CA also upheld the RTC’s assessment of the handwriting evidence regarding the adoption order.

    Undeterred, Tomasa elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a significant reversal, sided with Tomasa regarding her marriage but disagreed with the lower courts on the adoption.

    Regarding the marriage, the Supreme Court found that both lower courts erred in strictly applying the Best Evidence Rule without properly considering the exceptions. Justice Panganiban, writing for the Court, emphasized:

    “The contents of a document may be proven by competent evidence other than the document itself, provided that the offeror establishes its due execution and its subsequent loss or destruction. Accordingly, the fact of marriage may be shown by extrinsic evidence other than the marriage contract.”

    The Court pointed out that Tomasa presented various pieces of secondary evidence: testimonies from herself and a wedding witness, photographs of the ceremony, a letter from the solemnizing priest (Msgr. Yllana) acknowledging the marriage and its non-registration, and an affidavit from Msgr. Yllana explaining the loss of the marriage certificate. The Supreme Court held that this evidence sufficiently proved both the due execution and the loss of the original marriage contract, making secondary evidence admissible. The Court also highlighted the presumption of marriage arising from Tomasa and Alfredo’s cohabitation for over five years, which shifted the burden to Pilapil to disprove the marriage, a burden he failed to meet.

    However, on the issue of adoption, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts. It gave significant weight to Judge Moya’s deposition, where he stated he did not remember issuing the adoption order and explicitly denied that the signature on it was his. The Court also favored the NBI document examiner presented by Tomasa, who concluded the signature was forged. Furthermore, the Court noted inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence supporting the adoption claim, such as the absence of adoption records and the lack of evidence that Alfredo Jacob ever treated Pilapil as his adopted son. The Supreme Court concluded that Pilapil failed to meet his burden of proving the adoption.

    In its final ruling, the Supreme Court declared Tomasa’s marriage to Alfredo Jacob valid and Pedro Pilapil’s claimed adoption nonexistent.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FROM JACOB

    The Tomasa Vda. De Jacob case offers several crucial takeaways for individuals and legal practitioners alike. Firstly, it reinforces the importance of diligently preserving vital documents like marriage certificates and adoption papers. While secondary evidence is admissible, proving your case becomes significantly more challenging and reliant on witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence when primary documents are lost.

    Secondly, the case underscores that the Best Evidence Rule is not absolute. Philippine courts recognize the realities of document loss and will allow secondary evidence when proper foundation is laid. However, this requires meticulous preparation and presentation of evidence to convince the court of the original document’s existence, due execution, and genuine loss without bad faith.

    Thirdly, the ruling highlights the various forms of admissible secondary evidence, including testimonies, copies, photographs, and related documents. It emphasizes that even in the absence of a marriage certificate, marriage can be proven through other competent evidence, including witness accounts and the presumption arising from cohabitation.

    For those facing similar situations, this case provides a roadmap for navigating evidentiary challenges when original documents are missing. It emphasizes the need to gather and present all available secondary evidence to build a strong case.

    Key Lessons from Tomasa Vda. De Jacob vs. Court of Appeals:

    • Secondary Evidence is Admissible: Marriage and adoption can be proven even without original documents if you can establish due execution and loss.
    • Multiple Forms of Proof: Testimonies, photos, copies, and related documents can serve as secondary evidence.
    • Presumption of Marriage: Cohabitation as husband and wife creates a legal presumption of marriage, shifting the burden to the challenger.
    • Burden of Proof in Adoption: The person claiming adoption bears the burden of proving it convincingly.
    • Importance of Diligence: While secondary evidence is allowed, preserving original documents is always best to avoid evidentiary hurdles.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    1. What should I do if I lose my marriage certificate?

    If you lose your marriage certificate, immediately try to obtain a certified copy from the Local Civil Registrar where your marriage was registered. If a certified copy is unavailable, gather secondary evidence like church records, photos, witness testimonies, and any other documents that can prove your marriage.

    2. Can I still prove my marriage if there’s no record at the Local Civil Registrar?

    Yes, as this case shows, the Supreme Court recognizes that failure to register a marriage does not invalidate it. You can use secondary evidence to prove the marriage ceremony and your marital relationship.

    3. What is considered “secondary evidence” in proving marriage or adoption?

    Secondary evidence includes certified copies (if available), witness testimonies (from parties involved, solemnizing officer, witnesses), photographs, letters, affidavits, and any other relevant documents that can indirectly prove the original document’s existence and content.

    4. What do courts consider as “due execution” and “loss” of a document?

    “Due execution” means proving the document was validly signed and completed according to legal requirements. “Loss” means demonstrating to the court’s satisfaction that the original document is genuinely lost, destroyed, or cannot be found despite diligent efforts, and its unavailability is not due to bad faith on your part.

    5. Is just living together enough to be considered married under the law?

    Not automatically. However, under Article 76 of the Civil Code (and similar provisions in the Family Code), if a couple has lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and there are no legal impediments to marry, they can marry without a marriage license. Furthermore, long cohabitation creates a legal presumption of marriage, although this is disputable.

    6. How can someone prove adoption if the adoption order is missing?

    Similar to proving marriage, secondary evidence can be used. This might include testimonies from witnesses to the adoption process, copies of court records (if available), documents showing the adopted child was raised as part of the family, and any other evidence demonstrating the legal adoption process occurred.

    7. What is the role of handwriting experts in cases like this?

    Handwriting experts can provide valuable testimony in cases where the authenticity of a signature is questioned, as seen in the adoption issue in this case. However, the court ultimately weighs expert opinions along with other evidence and the judge’s own assessment.

    8. Does this case mean I don’t need to worry about keeping original documents?

    Absolutely not! While Tomasa Vda. De Jacob provides recourse when documents are lost, relying on secondary evidence is always more complex and uncertain than presenting original documents. Diligent record-keeping is always the best practice.

    ASG Law specializes in Family Law and Estate matters. Losing crucial documents doesn’t have to mean losing your legal rights. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and discuss your situation. We can help you navigate complex evidentiary issues and protect your family’s interests.

  • Original Documents are King: Proving Forgery in Philippine Courts Under the Best Evidence Rule

    n

    Why Original Documents Matter: The Best Evidence Rule in Forgery Cases

    n

    TLDR: In Philippine courts, proving forgery requires presenting the original document for expert examination. Photocopies are generally inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule, hindering forgery claims. This case emphasizes the critical importance of original documents in legal disputes, especially those involving property and contracts. Buyers must conduct thorough due diligence and not solely rely on copies when dealing with property titles to ensure good faith and avoid potential fraud.

    nn

    G.R. No. 117609, December 29, 1998

    nn

    n

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine discovering your family’s land title, passed down through generations, is under threat because of a supposedly forged deed from decades ago. This scenario highlights a critical aspect of Philippine law: the stringent requirements for proving forgery, particularly concerning documentary evidence. The case of Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals underscores the vital role of original documents in legal proceedings and the challenges faced when they are unavailable. At the heart of this dispute lies a Quezon City property and a contested deed of sale, raising the fundamental question: Can forgery be definitively proven in court without presenting the original document bearing the allegedly forged signature?

    n

    nn

    n

    THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE: THE GOLD STANDARD FOR DOCUMENTS

    n

    Philippine law adheres to the Best Evidence Rule, a cornerstone principle enshrined in Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. This rule dictates that when the content of a document is the subject of inquiry, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself. The rationale is simple: to prevent fraud and ensure accuracy. Original documents are considered the most reliable source of information, minimizing the risk of alterations, errors, or misinterpretations that can occur with copies.

    n

    However, the law recognizes practical realities. Exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule exist, allowing the presentation of secondary evidence like photocopies or witness testimonies when the original document is:

    n

      n

    1. Lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

      2. n

    2. In the custody or under the control of the party against whom it is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;

      3. n

    3. Voluminous records or numerous accounts which 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;

      4. n

    4. When the original is a public record in public custody.

      5. n

    n

    Crucially, proving forgery demands a meticulous examination of signatures and handwriting. Expert testimony from forensic document examiners is often crucial. However, as established in cases like U.S. vs. Gregorio and Borje vs. Sandiganbayan, expert analysis for signature verification ideally requires the original document. A photocopy, being a mere reproduction, lacks the subtle nuances of ink strokes, pressure, and paper fibers that experts rely upon to detect forgery. This case delves into whether a photocopy suffices when the original is unavailable due to unforeseen circumstances.

    n

    Furthermore, the concept of a “good faith purchaser” is central to property disputes. Philippine law protects individuals who buy property without knowledge of any defect in the seller’s title. This protection is rooted in the Torrens system of land registration, which aims to create indefeasible titles, promoting stability and confidence in land ownership. However, good faith is not simply about ignorance; it entails conducting reasonable due diligence to verify the seller’s right to the property. The extent of due diligence required and the consequences of failing to uncover potential fraud are key issues in this case.

    n

    nn

    n

    CASE NARRATIVE: A PROPERTY DISPUTE UNFOLDS

    n

    The saga began with Severa Gregorio, the original owner of a prime lot in Quezon City, holding Title Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8787 since 1949. In 1965, she leased the property to Shell for twenty years. Severa passed away intestate in 1976, leaving her heirs. Years later, in 1986, Buenconsejo Vivar, Severa’s daughter and administratrix of her estate, intended to sell the land after the Shell lease expired.

    n

    Upon requesting certified copies of land documents, a shocking discovery awaited. TCT No. 8787 was canceled, replaced by TCT No. 349788 under the names of spouses Wilson and Benita Lui Tan. Records revealed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 14, 1971, purportedly signed by Severa Gregorio, selling a 2/3 portion of the land to Ricardo Santos. Santos, in turn, allegedly sold this portion to the Tans in 1986. Adding another layer, the remaining 1/3 portion was acquired by spouses Palomo through a court-ordered execution sale against Severa’s daughter, Jesusa Galang, and subsequently assigned to the Tans.

    n

    The Gregorio heirs vehemently denied the 1971 sale to Santos, claiming Severa’s signature was forged. They filed a case against the Tans and others for cancellation of title and reconveyance, arguing the deeds were fraudulent. Tragedy struck when a fire gutted the Quezon City Hall in 1988, destroying crucial original documents, including the disputed 1971 deed and TCT No. 349788.

    n

    Despite the loss, the case proceeded. The heirs presented NBI handwriting expert Bienvenido Albacea, who testified, based on a *photocopy* of the 1971 deed, that Severa’s signature was indeed forged. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Gregorio heirs, declaring the 1971 deed and subsequent sale to the Tans void, citing forgery and bad faith on the part of the Tans as purchasers.

    n

    However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. It gave weight to the argument that the expert’s testimony was based on a photocopy, violating the Best Evidence Rule. The appellate court also found the Tans to be innocent purchasers in good faith.

    n

    The case reached the Supreme Court. The central issues were:

    n

      n

    • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the NBI expert’s testimony due to the Best Evidence Rule.

      • n

    • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the Tan spouses to be innocent purchasers for value and in good faith.

      • n

    n

    The Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeals, emphasizing the primacy of the Best Evidence Rule. Justice Purisima, writing for the Court, stated:

    n

    “Basic is the rule of evidence that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. This is especially true when the issue is that of forgery.”

    n

    The Court underscored that forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the best evidence is the original document itself for signature comparison. While acknowledging the NBI expert’s testimony, the Court reiterated that judges must exercise independent judgment and cannot solely rely on expert opinions, especially without examining the original signature. Regarding the Tans’ good faith, the Supreme Court found no evidence of bad faith, noting they verified the title, engaged a real estate broker, and even consulted a lawyer. The Court quoted the Court of Appeals’ findings:

    n