Case: Parel V. Prudencio: Doctrine

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 4

Case: PAREL v.

PRUDENCIO
Doctrine:

“The theory under which declarations against interest are received in


evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity of the
occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and, further
that the reliability of such declaration asserts facts which are against his
own pecuniary or moral interest.”

Facts:
On February 27, 1992, Simeon Prudencio (respondent) filed a complaint for
recovery of possession and damages against petitioner with the RTC Baguio
alleging that: he is the owner of a two-storey residential house located at No.
61 Forbes Park National Reservation near Department of Public Service (DPS)
compound, Baguio City; such property was constructed solely from his own
funds and declared in his name under Tax Declaration No. 47048; he
commenced the construction of said house in 1972 until its completion three
years later; when the second floor of said house became habitable in 1973, he
allowed petitioner’s parents, Florentino (now deceased) and Susan Parel, to
move therein and occupy the second floor while the construction of the ground
floor was on-going to supervise the construction and to safeguard the
materials; when the construction of the second floor was finished in 1975,
respondent allowed petitioner’s parents and children to transfer and
temporarily reside thereat; it was done out of sheer magnanimity as petitioner’s
parents have no house of their own and since respondent’s wife is the older
sister of Florentino, petitioner’s father; in November 1985, respondent wrote
Florentino a notice for them to vacate the said house as the former was due for
retirement and he needed the place to which petitioner’s parents heeded when
they migrated to U.S. in 1986; however, without respondent’s knowledge,
petitioner and his family unlawfully entered and took possession of the ground
floor of respondent’s house; petitioner’s refusal to vacate the house despite
repeated demands prompted respondent to file the instant action for recovery
of possession. Respondent also asked petitioner for a monthly rental
of P3,000.00 from April 1988 and every month thereafter until the latter
vacates the said premises and surrender possession thereof; and for moral
and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and cost of suit.

Petitioner filed his Answer with Counterclaim alleging that: his parents are the
co-owners of the said residential house, i.e., the upper story belongs to
respondent while the ground floor pertains to petitioner’s parents; he is
occupying the ground floor upon the instruction of his father, Florentino, with
respondent’s full knowledge; his parents spent their own resources in
improving and constructing the said two-storey house as co-owners thereof;
the late Florentino was an awardee of the land on which the house stands and
as a co-owner of the house, he occupied the ground floor thereof; the demand
to vacate was respondent’s attempt to deprive petitioner’s parents of their
rights as co-owner of the said house; that respondent had filed ejectment case
as well as criminal cases against them involving the subject house which were
all dismissed. Petitioner asked for the dismissal of the complaint and prayed
for damages and attorney’s fees.

Issue:

Whether petitioner was able to prove by preponderance of evidence that his


father was a co-owner of the subject two-storey residential house.

Ruling:

RTC: declares that the house erected at No. 61 DPS Compound, Baguio City
is owned in common by the late Florentino Parel and herein plaintiff
Simeon Prudencio and as such the plaintiff cannot evict the defendant as
heirs of the deceased Florentino Parel from said property, nor to recover said
premises from herein defendant.

CA:reversed the trial court and declared respondent as the sole owner of the
subject house and ordered petitioner to surrender possession of the ground
floor thereof to respondent immediately.

SC: AFFIRMED the CA decision

We agree with the CA that respondent had shown sufficient evidence to


support his complaint for recovery of possession of the ground floor of the
subject house as the exclusive owner thereof. Respondent presented the
affidavit dated September 24, 1973 executed by Florentino and sworn to
before the Assistant City Assessor of Baguio City, G.F. Lagasca, which reads:

I, FLORENTINO PAREL, 42 years of age, employee, and residing at Forbes


Park, Reservation No. 1, after having been sworn to according to law depose
and say:

That he is the occupant of a residential building located at Forbes Park,


Reservation No. 1, Baguio City which is the subject of an advicement
addressed to him emanating from the Office of the City Assessor, Baguio City,
for assessment and declaration for taxation purposes;

That I am not the owner of the building in question;


That the building in question is owned by Mr. Simeon B. Prudencio who is
presently residing at 55 Hyacinth, Roxas District, Quezon City.

Further, affiant say not.

Section 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 38. Declaration against interest. – The declaration made by a person


deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact
asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to the
declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have
made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in
evidence against himself or his successors-in-interest and against third
persons.

The theory under which declarations against interest are received in evidence
notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity of the occasion renders
the reception of such evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of such
declaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary or moral interest.

The affiant, Florentino, who died in 1989 was petitioner’s father and had
adequate knowledge with respect to the subject covered by his statement. In
said affidavit, Florentino categorically declared that while he is the occupant of
the residential building, he is not the owner of the same as it is owned by
respondent who is residing in Quezon City. It is safe to presume that he would
not have made such declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it is
prejudicial to himself as well as to his children’s interests as his heirs. A
declaration against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest
certainty of the facts in dispute. Notably, during Florentino’s lifetime, from 1973,
the year he executed said affidavit until 1989, the year of his death, there is no
showing that he had revoked such affidavit even when a criminal complaint for
trespass to dwelling had been filed by respondent against him (Florentino) and
petitioner in 1988 regarding the subject house which the trial court dismissed
due to the absence of evidence showing that petitioner entered the house
against the latter’s will and held that the remedy of respondent was to file an
action for ejectment; and even when a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed
against petitioner and his wife also in 1988 which was subsequently dismissed
on the ground that respondent’s action should be an accion publiciana which is
beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.

Moreover, the building plan of the residential house dated January 16, 1973
was in the name of respondent and his wife. It was established during
petitioner’s cross-examination that the existing structure of the two-storey
house was in accordance with said building plan.

Notably, respondent has been religiously paying the real estate property taxes
on the house declared under his name since 1974. In fact, petitioner during his
cross-examination admitted that there was no occasion that they paid the real
estate taxes nor declared any portion of the house in their name.

You might also like