Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
GENERAL PROVISIONS
What is law? Law is a rule of the human conduct just and
obligatory promulgated by legislative or legitimate authority for
common benefit and service.
What are the branches of law?
1.
2.
2.
[Page 1 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
[Page 2 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
x x x in a judicial proceeding x x x
What does it mean? It means that the Rules of Evidence is
actually applicable to judicial proceedings only, in a strict sense.
Because there exists non-judicial proceedings (administrative,
quasi-judicial) and so, how does the law treat of evidence
presented in non-judicial proceedings?
General Rule: When the proceedings are administrative or
quasi-judicial, the rules on evidence are not strictly applicable.
In fact in the case of Samar Electric Cooperative v. NLRC,
March 21, 1997, where SC ruled that technical rules of
evidence are not strictly followed in labor relations. Art 221 of the
Labor Code affirms this liberality, that the rules of evidence
prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling and
it is the spirit and contention of the Labor Code that prevails.
Hence, the technical rules of evidence will not be binding.
So how does a hearing officer in a labor case ascertain facts? In
Morales v. NLRC, the SC held that the hearing officer may avail
of all reasonable means to ascertain facts. Meaning, not too
formal, not too strict, it tells you that its not supposed to be a
trial-type hearing.
DIFFERENT CLASSES
OF EVIDENCE
AS TO TYPES
intelligence.
It is not prohibited although not specifically mentioned
in the rules of court. What matters would be the
intelligence used by the court, from which the court can
draw conclusions and make inferences from the object
so presented.
2.
on January 14.
It was a denial but the denial was pregnant with
something else because only denied not having the
meeting on January 14 only. Thus, by not commenting
on the qualification (January 15 meeting), the witness is
implying the exact opposite of what he is saying:
affirmation that there was a meeting on January 15.
AS TO MATERIALITY
1.
2.
AS TO RELEVANCY
1.
2.
2.
AS TO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
It can either be cumulative or corroborative evidence.
1.
2.
[Page 6 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
2.
See the court may consider the number of witness though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. What
Im trying to point out that fact that the number of evidences are
not the determining factor in arriving to the conclusion of the
court. Can you win a case without introduction of evidence? Yes
under Rule 9 when you are declared in default, the court can
decide the case based on the prayer of the complaint. What
about in a criminal case? A rape case. Yes, if there is no prima
facie evidence against the accused.
What is prima facie evidence? It is evidence sufficient to
establish a fact and if not rebutted becomes conclusive of a fact.
Example, in cases of bribery, the acceptance of a gift of a public
officer is deemed prima facie evidence of bribery. To illustrate:
3.
[Page 7 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
But there would be certain opinions that are admissible like the
expert opinion and ordinary opinion.
Expert opinion, for example you present the medico legal
officer who conducted the autopsy of the victim. That would be
admissible. It is presented in court which is beyond the
knowledge of the court. Question: Can you think under the law
which would require an expert to prove a matter of fact?
Psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
Remember psychological incapacity has to be proven as laid
down in the case of Molina.
[Page 8 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
2.
RELEVANCY
Section 4:
Those with direct relation to the fact in issue which
may induce belief in its existence or non-existence
and
Those collateral matters which tends to establish
probability or improbability of fact in issue
2.
COMPETENCY
Section 3: Not excluded by law or any of these Rules
[Page 9 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
2)
It is not private.
You ask me, this is a very, very weak law. Why? Because it does
not really specifically define what terrorism is all about. It cites
or lists down provisions of RPC and uses them as terrorism acts.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
[Page 10 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
l.
Conditional Admissibility
Multiple Admissibility
Curative Admissibility
[Page 13 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
that there are things or what are the instances when proof can
be dispensed with. Unsa ning mga butang na dili kinahanglan
iprove?
RULE 129
PRESUMPTIONS
Disputable presumption.
II.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
[Page 14 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
MANDATORY
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Rule 129. Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A
court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and
history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws
of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
Quite a mouthful noh? But for me, at least, this is complete. It
already enumerates the subject matter and topics that are
objects of mandatory judicial notice and therefore if it is not
found in Section 1 then that matter is not a matter of mandatory
judicial notice. Although, we will find later, that there is judicial
notice on certain matters beyond Section 1. Lets go over the
objects one-by-one:
(1) The existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality: Again, the purpose here would be expediency. It
would be absurd to require evidence on these matters. Besides,
judges should not be more ignorant than the rest of the people.
[Page 15 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Dilinanakinahanglan.
(2) Law of Nations: Do you know what the law of nations is?
This refers to international law. But my next question is do you
know all these treaties?
For example, CEDAW or Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women as explained by the
Supreme Court in the case of Halaguena versus Philippine
Airlines, which is a Civil Procedure case. Okay for example
CEDAW, do you know its provisions? Have you even heard of
CEDAW? Im willing to bet 50% of you have not even heard
about it. Oh sige lets not go into specifics, ing.ani nalang: How
does international law become part of the law of the land, or
how does it become part of domestic law or national law? Can
you recall a Constitutional provisions on this matter? Diba, The
Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all
nations. That is Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. By
virtue of that clause, for example, the CEDAW becomes a part of
the national law because it adheres to the generally accepted
principles. This is by virtue of the incorporation clause in the
Philippine Constitution, which other countries also have a similar
clause. International law is given an equal but not superior
standing than domestic laws.
[Page 16 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
132 Section 24 and 25. But there are certain principles that we
have to be aware of. Foreign laws need not be proven if the
other party already admits them. That will be considered as a
judicial admission not requiring proof. Also we have the principle
of processual presumption: in the absence of proof or judicial
admission, the laws of the foreign state is presumed to be similar
to our laws.
Here is an interesting case: Teodora Sobejana-Condon
versus Comelec (2012). Here, the petitioner is the winning vice
mayoralty candidate of Caba, La Union. A petition for quo
warrantowas filed against her stating that she as a dual citizen,
under RA 9225, must execute a sworn renunciation of her
Australian citizenship. So the petitioner answered when she
execute a renunciation of her Australian citizenship in Australia,
she is deemed to have renounced her foreign citizenship. And
she wanted the court to take judicial notice of the laws of
Australia, which says that renunciation of her citizen under the
laws of Australia is binding to the whole world. She also
contended that her mere act of running for public office is a clear
abandonment of her foreign citizenship. According to the
Supreme Court, we do not take judicial notice of a foreign law
such as the Australian Citizenship Act. A sworn renunciation is
required under 9225, which requires the sworn renunciation of
foreign citizenship.
(6) Official acts of the executive department: what do they
consist of? Presidential decrees, presidential declarations,
Executive orders and so on and so forth. Cabinet secretaries
being the alter egos of the President, their acts are also
considered official acts of the executive department. So when
there is a department circular, administrative order,
administrative circular, courts should take judicial notice of it.
Now, one such matter which the president can exercise as an
official act of executive department is executive clemency.
Amnesty and pardon also falls under the acts of the executive
but how do you distinguish them.
In the case of People versus William O. Casido, pardon is
granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act
which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned,
because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by
Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of
Congress, and it is a public act of which the courts should take
judicial notice. So if its a pardon, you have to prove the pardon,
id that is relevant to your case. But if it is an amnesty, which is
not only an official act of the President but with the concurrence
of the Congress, it is a public act which the courts are required to
take judicial notice.
(7) Official acts of the judicial department: Of course,
these refer to cases decided by the Supreme Court of
jurisprudence. So judges must not rely on the codal provisions
but be updated in the jurisprudence as well. Judges are also
supposed to take judicial notice of Rules of Court. Judges who
wouldnt follow the Rules of Court is something Dean Inigo,
during his lifetime, could not stand.
[Page 17 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of a nonministerial or discretionary act; only when it is purely ministerial
that you can actually compel a judge by mandamus to do
something.
[Page 18 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
[Page 19 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
JUDICIAL NOTICE,
WHEN HEARING NECESSARY
Rule 129. Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary.
During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of
a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of
any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper
court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the
case.
In section 3, same thing lang gihapon. The Judge tells the parties
that he is going to take judicial notice of this particular fact.
In section 2, parties cannot do anything if the Judge already
exercises his discretion. In section 3, it is actually a weird
provision, if you ask me. Why? Because section 3 provides for JN
where hearing is necessary. Is it not a fact that JN by its very
nature dispenses with evidence and therefore dispenses with a
hearing? Section 3 is contrary to the essence of JN.
Issue: W/N the market value should have been taken judicial
notice of without the requirement of hearing. NO
[Page 20 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Held:
Exempting Circumstance
Person under 9 or person over 9 but under 15 who
acted without discernment)
Mitigating Circumstance
Person under 18 or over 17 who commits a criminal
offense, age may be appreciated as mitigating)
Aggravating Circumstance
Qualifying Circumstance
If victim is under 18 and the offender is a relative
or if the victim is child below 7 years old
[Page 21 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
This is an old case but still the case that you should remember.
What are the guidelines in the matter of appreciating the age of
victim either as an element of crime or a qualifying
circumstance?
1.
2.
[Page 22 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
b.
c.
5.
nato kinahanglan lalisan, dili na kinahanglan debatihon kay giangkon naman nako. Thats the concept of admission.
The latin maxim applicable is Latin maxim applicable is
[Page 23 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
The pleadings
Now, lets try to recall the type of admissions that can be made
in civil procedure because Im sure that you know that there are
a lot of instances in civil procedure where there can make
admissions.
Why is it that the law does not mandate that you should file
a reply? Precisely because the law wants everything to be
quick. You are already given 15 days to file an answer and
then when you are supposed to file your reply you are given
an extra 10 days.
[Page 24 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
[Page 25 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
THE
JUDICIAL
ADMISSION
MAY
BE
CONRTRADICTED BY SHOWING THAT IT WAS
MADE THROUGH PALPABLE MISTAKE
Palpable mistake it means the mistake is obvious to all
sides, these are mistakes that are glaring, that the
judge or the adverse party can see that there was really
no judicial admission was made by the party.
Under the old rules of evidence this palpable mistake
exception was the only exception that binds the party
making the admission but the new rules they added one
more
2.
You have to read all the cases assigned. The case of Aguenza
vs. Metrobank and Trust Company and Conahap vs. Heirs
of Regana where the SC said that the admissions of the parties
during pre-trial as embodied in the pre-trial order, are binding
and conclusive on them, unless there is a clear showing that the
admission was entered through palpable mistake. Such
admissions cannot be contradicted by the parties reason again
would be estoppels.
If youre a plaintiff in a case, who are allowed to make
admissions in your behalf? Admission made by your lawyer would
be binding on you as a general rule, subject to certain
exceptions.
Example in the case of People vs. Hernandez, a stipulation of
facts proposed during trial by prosecution and admitted by the
defense counsel is tantamount to a judicial admission of the facts
stipulated upon.
People of the PH vs. Christina Hernandez
July 1996 * digest by KJ *
Hernandez was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment and
was convicted of crime charged. On appeal, she contended that
the prosecution failed to prove one of the essential elements of
the crime of illegal recruitment that the offender is a nonlicensee or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers. She questions the
reliance of the lower court in the supposed stipulation proposed
by the prosecution and admitted by the defense during trial
that neither appellant nor her company was licensed or
authorized to recruit workers as shown by the records of the
POEA. She claims that the stipulation of facts is null and void.
Issue: WON Section 4 of Rule 118 (requiring an agreement or
admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference to be
reduced in writing and signed by the accused and his counsel
before the same may be used in evidence against the accused)
equally applies to a stipulation of facts made during trial. NO.
Held: RE writing A stipulation of facts entered into by the
prosecution and defense counsel during trial in open court is
automatically reduced into WRITING and contained in the official
transcript of the proceedings had in court.
RE signature The conformity of the accused in the form of his
signature affixed thereto is unnecessary in view of the fact that
"...an attorney who is employed to manage a party's
conduct of a lawsuit... has prima facie authority to make
relevant admissions by pleadings, by oral or written
stipulation... which unless allowed to be withdrawn are
conclusive."
We have the case of Fule vs. CA, it became quite doctrinal that
it affected the rules on criminal procedure. The 1985 rules of
criminal procedure specifically with respect to pre-trial
agreement, the rule was no agreement or admissions made or
entered during the pre-trial shall be used in evidence against the
accused unless introduced into writing and signed by him and
[Page 26 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Now what if you are the prosecution and you simply rely on the
admission made by the accused during pre-trial? Therefore wala
naka nag present ug evidence, because remember the effect of
an admission, it withdraws a particular fact from contention, no
more need to present any evidence if it is already subject to a
stipulation of facts specifically if made during pre-trial. The SC
said: If that is the case you should not simply rely simply on that
admission which later on was invalidated by the SC. What the
prosecution should have done upon discovering that the accused
did not sign the stipulation of facts as required by rule 118 was
to submit an evidence to establish the element of the crime
instead of relying solely on the supposed admission of the
accused in the stipulation of facts without said evidence
independent of the admission the guilt of the accused cannot be
deemed established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore in
this case Fule was acquitted because of that technicality.
It is sort of unfair because the 1985 rules did not say anything
about the effect if it was not signed. Now it already provides the
effect under:
Rule 118. Section 2.Pre-trial agreement. All agreements or
admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference
shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and
counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.
The agreements covering the matters referred to in Section 1 of
this Rule shall be approved by the court.
So kinahanglan ug court approval and also states that otherwise
they cannot be used against the accused if the agreement
entered or made during the pre-trial is not reduced in writing and
signed by the accused and counsel.
RULE 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
OBJECT EVIDENCE
I.
II.
Does this not violate OJ Simpsons right against selfincrimination? The right against self-incrimination covers
only compulsion to confess guilt but it does not exclude
purely mechanical acts. Example you wear a gloves that
is purely mechanical and therefore it is not covered.
What else is not covered in the right against selfincrimination? When you are subjected to a paraffin test
thats purely mechanical and because it is purely
mechanical you cannot object to the conduct of the test
on the ground of violation of the right against selfincrimination.
You cannot bring the land to the court but you can
bring the court to the land. So what usually happens is
the court will be there or the clerk of court, remember
you can delegate the inspection of evidence to the clerk
of court, the clerk of court can make objections but he
has no power to rule on the objections, i-note
langniyaang objections and bring it to the attention of
the court the court will make the ruling. The
stenographer will also be there. Then a report about the
ocular inspection. So it can be done.
III.
[Page 28 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Would that prove all by itself the factum probandum? No, it must
first be supported by other propositions and in the ultimate
analysis it must be proven to have a logical relationship to the
ultimate fact in issue.
How do you that? You can only do that by means of testimonial
evidence. Testimonial evidence is that method by which you are
able to authenticate object evidence to identify object evidence.
While you evidence is consisted of object evidence these
evidence must first be identified and authenticated by competent
witness, sponsored by a witness.
What about money? Is money object or documentary evidence?
Naa bay symbols in money, nay words, characters, figures, and
means of written expression? Yes, so is this 100 peso bill a
document or is it object evidence that is addressed to the senses
of the court when relevant to the fact in issue this money may be
exhibited tot examined or viewed by the court?
If the fact in issue bill appears to be new or any physical
attributes relative to appearance and condition then this is of
course object evidence. So if this is presented that this object is
ube in color then this is object evidence. But if the fact in issue
relates to whatever is written here then it is documentary
evidence.
What if it is a special type of money? Would marked money be
considered object evidence or documentary evidence?
According to the SC in the case of People vs. Reyes, marked
money is actually object evidence. Marked money is the
consideration paid for the sale of illegal drugs transaction. It is
relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Rule. 130. Section 2. Documentary Evidence. Documents as
evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents.
[Page 29 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
4.
5.
(Note: Those highlighted are those which Atty. Espejo called the
Basic Requisites.)
Why does the BER exist? What is its essence? The SC held
that the underlying purpose of the rule is the prevention of fraud
or mistake in the proof of the contents of a document. Requiring
the original of the document would actually prevent that.
Otherwise, if a duplicate or photocopy is allowed, it will pave the
way or will allow an unscrupulous party to present spurious
evidence. It will be easy to perpetrate fraud. [Excuse letter story
in Elementary]
[Page 30 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
2.
2.
3.
4.
Also, it does
disappeared.
not
apply
when
the
original
Loss
xxx
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
xxx
[Page 31 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
1.
2.
3.
4.
xxx
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents 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; and
xxx
Example, you are engaged in business so in the daily
basis you issue receipts, invoices. Imagine a case where
your documentary evidence constitute voluminous
number of documents that you need to present. You no
longer have to present all of those because it will be a
complete waste of time. You dont really care about the
specifics; you are more interested in the end result.
Can you think about a situation under the law where the
original is contained is some other authentic document
that can be admissible as well as a functional equivalent
of the original?
Example, you are going to plead an actionable
document. You have two options: you can either attach
it or incorporate it.
xxx
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter
fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
xxx
The mere fact that the original is in the possession of
the adverse party does not ipso facto authorize the
introduction of the photocopy or secondary evidence to
prove its contents.
xxx
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.
This is governed by the provision:
Rule 130. Section 7. Evidence admissible when
original document is a public record. When the
there is in the ledger, it came first from the journal? Yes. So that
is the best example here, ledger and journal. Both are regarded
as originals.
August 5, 2015 (DM)
For example, you are going to take the Bar already, you
are asked to produce a copy of your Birth Certificate.
When you go to the Civil Registrar, are you given the
actual, real copy of your BC which was entered into in
1980s? You are simply issued a NSO certified copies of
your BC. Same with marriage contracts.
Now, when you go to the ROD. The entries there are
public records, are you given the original? Of course
not. You might be given a certified true copy. Why?
Because of:
Rule 132. Section 26. Irremovability of public
record. Any public record, an official copy of which
is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from
the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a
court where the inspection of the record is essential to
the just determination of a pending case.
Thus, where the original document is a public record,
the secondary evidence allowed is a certified true copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
[Page 33 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Lets go back to parole evidence rule. Take note that the PER is a
so-called Rule of Integration. Everything we have agreed upon
prior to reducing it into writing, prior to signing, is supposed to
be integrated in the WA. If its not seen in the WA, therefore it is
deed waived. That is the rule of wiaver after integration.
2.
3.
Does that mean that the agreement between them not found in
writing is not valid? Remember the only requisites for validity of
the contract? (meeting of minds) But can you prove it in court?
That is the only thing that matters when you are talking about
PER which is not a limitation for the validity of a contract.
It is simply a requirement that must be taken into
consideration as a condition sine qua non to prove such
contract that seems to be un-integrated in the written
agreement. Majority of contracts are consensual. Once a
contract is created it is binding on the parties.
PER is not a limitation on the validity but it is a limitation on
the provability of an existence of something other than
the written agreement.
When would PER apply? When there is a written agreement.
4.
5.
6.
xxx
The term "agreement" includes wills.
Premise: Agreement includes wills.
Can a making of will subject to agreement? For example Testator
A agrees with B to make B an heir. They become mutual wills of
the other. (donation capta toria) Will cannot be subject that
agreement.
You cannot subject the making of a will to an agreement under
the basic principle that the making of a will is a strictly personal
act.
[Page 34 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
It is needed in your pleading before you can raise it. If you plan
to introduce oral evidence to refute a written agreement you
have to state that. Without this requisite, you cannot claim
exception.
a.
xxx
An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement
xxx
AMBIGUITY
Ambiguous, di klaro uncertainty of meaning usually
cause by words or phrases that convey more than one
meaning. When you read ambiguity in the context of
PER, ambiguity is susceptible of two or more
interpretations.
Two types:
1.
2.
MISTAKE
In order for mistake to be an exception: you have to
reckon with requisites of mistake. If you look at Rules of
Court theres no definition of mistake. Thankfully it is
covered by civil law.
b.
xxx
The validity of the written agreement
xxx
If you want to apply the exception under PER, youre
trying to present parole evidence to say the contract
was not valid in the first place. You only apply the rule
of integration to contracts which have been properly
integrated. But if void ab intiio, no need to apply PER.
In all probability it is the oral contract that is valid.
IMPERFECTION
If the agreement is alleged to be forged, that is also an
exception ALORIA vs CLEMENTE, Feb 23 3006.
a.
xxx
The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto
xxx
c.
xxx
The existence of other terms to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
xxx
Subsequent (an exception, not covered by PER)
Other than the written agreement we executed, we had
a subsequent oral agreement. These agreements are
not covered under the PER and they are considered as
exceptions.
Ex. B borrowed money from A. To evidence the loan, B
signed a PROMISSORY NOTE, maturity date Dec 1
2015, but B defaulted. A sued.
and
false
All
other
agreements
whether
prior
and
contemporaneous, subsequent or collateral if the issue
revolves around fraud and false representation because
they are incidental to the execution and not to the
integration of the agreement is not covered by the PER.
Thats Woodhouse versus Halili 1958.
[Page 37 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
[Page 38 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
xxx
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of
Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following
cases an agreement hereafter made shall be
unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some
note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and
subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent;
evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be
received without the writing, or a secondary evidence
of its contents:
(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to
be performed within a year from the making
thereof;
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt,
default, or miscarriage of another;
(c) An agreement made in consideration of
marriage, other than a mutual promise to
marry;
(d) An agreement for the sale of goods,
chattels or things in action, at a price not less
than five hundred pesos, unless the buyer
accept and receive part of such goods and
chattels, or the evidences, or some of them,
of such things in action or pay at the time
some part of the purchase money; but when
a sale is made by auction and entry is made
by the auctioneer in his sales book, at the
time of the sale, of the amount and kind of
property sold, terms of sale, price, names of
the purchasers and person on whose account
the sale is made, it is a sufficient
memorandum;
(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer
period than one year, or for the sale of real
property or of an interest therein;
(f) A representation as to the credit of a third
person.
xxx
STATUTE OF FRAUDS
Interestingly enough when we talk about exclusion the main law
is:
New Civil Code. Article 1356. contracts are obligatory in
whatever form they may have been entered into provided all
the requisites are present
Contracts are perfected by mere consent. Form is important only
if a law mandates that it be written. We know that a contract to
sell is a consensual contract. Delivery is an obligation, a condition
precedent for the transfer of ownership. But a contract to sell is a
consensual contract perfected by mere consent. Contract of sale
can be in writing or word of mouth or partly in writing or partly
of word of mouth or even inferred from the conduct of the
parties. E.g. auction sale, sinyas sinyas lng bisan wala words.
In contracts of sale, it is delivery that consummates the contract.
Consummation is not required to its validity. It is valid in
whatever form they may be entered into. In other words, a
contract of sale if valid gisulat man nimo o wala.
For validity However, there are provisions of the law which
provides for formalities of a contract. Examples are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
2)
3)
For greater efficacy/ convenience Under Statute of
Frauds, not all contracts are covered. Not the entire Article 1403
is Statute of Frauds. It is only Section 2 of Article 1403 is the
Statute of Frauds.
New Civil Code. Article 1403. The following contracts are
unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
[Page 39 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Claudel vs. CA, July 12, 1991: The purpose of the Statute of
Frauds is to prevent fraud and perjury in the enforcement of
obligations depending for their evidence upon the unassisted
memory of witnesses by requiring certain enumerated contracts
and transactions to be evidenced in Writing.
The provisions of the Statute of Frauds originally appeared
under the old Rules of Evidence. However when the Civil Code
was re-written in 1949 (to take effect in 1950), the provisions of
the Statute of Frauds were taken out of the Rules of Evidence in
order to be included under the title on Unenforceable Contracts
in the Civil Code. The transfer was not only a matter of style but
to show that the Statute of Frauds is also a substantive law.
So whats the requirement here, there are certain enumerated
contracts you have to have some written evidence of the
contract. If you dont have written evidence, if the contract is
breached and you are aggrieved, you cannot prove that contract
to obtain relief. In a nutshell, that is the Statute of Frauds.
One thing you need to remember also, when you talk about
Statute of Frauds, not all contracts are covered by SoF. When
you go outside to buy from Manang Luchi or Manong
Paningkamot sa una nagapangutang ko og sigarilyo o candy sa
tindahan sa gawas. Does it have to be covered by SoF? With
respect to the framing of the SoF, it was the tasks of the writers
of the law to identify certain contracts to be subject to strict
scrutiny. So that they can be enforceable. They already
enumerated it and can be found in # 2 Section 1403 of the civil
code.
So what are the unenforceable contracts under Statute of
Frauds: Unenforceable by action means you cannot sue on
the contract. You cannot prove that a contract exists in court.
That is what is meant by that unless a note or memorandum is
made. Again evidence cannot be received without the writing.
We are not talking here of formal notarized contract. It is not
necessary that it be reduced by a notary public in a contract.
Why? Because the law simply requires a note or memorandum
that is of course in writing. Dili kinahanglan nga notarized. Note
or memorandum is enough.
Take note that SoF does not foreclose the application of the Best
Evidence Rule, the substitutionary evidence. The exception to
BER. So this requirement of note or memorandum would do. E.g.
a tissue paper will do.
Torcuator vs. Bernabe (2005): It is required that
memorandum or note should require atleast the name of the
parties, the terms and conditions of the contract, the description
of the property that are capable of identification.
It is not like will that it has to be either a notarial will or
holographic will. Notarial daghan kaayo formalities. Holographic
naa pud formalities. Lisod giyahapon.
What is the shortest will ever? There was this case. A German made a will using
very short words. all my properties will go to my wife. It was probated. And was
admitted into probate. Everything went well.
[Page 40 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
[Page 41 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Take note that SOF does not apply to oral partition of property.
You havent taken up Rules 74, so I will not yet explain it further.
(3) DOES NOT APPLY TO WILLS
Would the SOF apply to wills? Can there be oral wills in the PH?
Of course not but anyway just to make an academic distinction:
if a parol evidence rule by fiction of law considers a will an
agreement for the application of Section 9 Rule 130, under the
statute of frauds it is not considered an agreement. It does not
cover wills. Although anyway, we dont have oral wills here so
that is for academic purpose only; because the effect is the
same. You cannot allege that the testator told you that his will
give you all the property he has at the time of his death. You
cannot do that.
(4) APPLIES ONLY TO ACTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF
CONTRACTS OR ACTIONS FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE
(5) DOES NOT APPLY WHEN PARTY OFFER PAROL
EVIDENCE TO PROVE TRUE INTENT
The SOF does not apply when the party offers to prove through
parol evidence that the agreement does not express the true
intent of the parties. Dili na siya mao ang applicable, what is
applicable? The parol evidence rule. Because the action there is
to make the contract express the true agreement of the parties.
It is an imperfection in the written agreement.
[Page 42 of 43]
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Law
Object
RE:
Wills
When
invoked
Cannot be invoked
by a stranger to the
contract
Rules of Court.
Rule 130, Section 9
Nothing to do with the
manner of proving
agreements. Its object is to
prohibit alteration, change,
modification, variation or
contradiction of the terms
of a written agreement
By fiction of law, treats
wills as agreement and
thus it made applicable to
wills
Cannot be invoked by
either party to the litigation
against the other where at
least one of the parties to
the suit is not a party or a
privy of a party to the
written instrument.
Simply stated: This does
not apply where third
parties are affected (?)
[Tip: Do not answer in a table. Do not answer in one big paragraph without any
white space whatsoever. Answer in proper essay form. Also, do not limit with
contrast. Write down the similarity as well. Try to answer just like in enumeration
questions. That, for me, will result to topnotch answers. Provided your answers are
also correct.]