07 PAREL vs.
PRUDENCIO RTC ruled that the house is owned in common by Prudencio and Florention Parel
G.R. No. 146556. April 19, 2006.
TOPIC: DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
PONENTE: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
DOCTRINE:
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 declarants 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.
A declaration against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest
certainty of the facts in dispute.
EMERGENCY RECIT: Prudencio filed against Parel a complaint for Recovery of
Possesion of a two storey house in Baguio. Prudencio allowed the parents of Parel to
live on the 2nd floor of the house and asked them to vacate when he was about to
retire. The parents migrated to the US. Parel, however, unlawfully occupied the
ground floor. He asserts that his parents are co-owners of the house and that their
share was the ground floor and Prudencios 2nd floor. Prudencio presented
Florentinos (the father) Affidavit as evidence stating that Prudencio is the owner of
the property. RTC did not give credence to the affidavit and ruled that its purpose
was for property tax and that the same is hearsay and cannot be accepted. CA
reversed. SC affirmed CA. It held that the affidavit was a declaration against interest
and it may be received in evidence.
FACTS:
Simeon Prudencio (respondent) filed a complaint for recovery of possession and
damages against Parel (petitioner). He alleges that he is the owner of the two-
storey house at Forbes Park National Reservation in Baguio City.
The property was constructed solely from his own funds and when the 2nd floor
of the said house became habitable in 1973, he allowed Parels parents to move
in and occupy the 2nd floor.
On 1985, Prudencio wrote a notice to Parels father to vacate the house as he
was due for retirement and he needed the house. The parents of Parel heeded
the notice and migrated to the US in 1986.
However, without Prudencios knowledge, Parel and his family unlawfully
entered and took possession of the ground floor of the house. They refused to
vacate despite repeated demands by Prudencio, who then filed the instant case
and asked for monthly rental of P3000.00 and damages.
Parel filed his Answer with counterclaim alleging that his parents are co-owners
of the said residential house. That the 2nd floor belongs to Prudencio while the
ground floor which he is occupying belongs to his father.
(father of petitioner). It found the following as conclusive:
o That petitioners father was an allocatee of the land on which the
subject house was erected, as one of the lowly-paid government
employees at that time when then Mayor Luis Lardizabal gave them the
chance to construct their own house on said reservation;
o That respondent failed to show proof of any contract, written or oral,
express or implied, that the late Florentino and his family stayed on the
house not as co-owners but as mere lessees;
o That respondent and petitioners father agreed to contribute their
money to complete the house;
o That since the land on which said house was erected has been allocated
to petitioners father, the parties had the understanding that once the
house is completed, petitioners father could keep the ground floor
while respondent the second floor;
o That the Affidavit executed by Florentino declaring the house was
owned by Prudencio was executed because of an advisement
addressed to the late Florentino by the City Treasurer concerning
the propertys tax assessment (Florentino thought that it should be
the respondent who should pay the taxes); and
o That the affidavit cannot be accepted for being hearsay.
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and held that Prudencio was
the sole owner of the subject house. The CA found that the affidavit dated
September 24, 1973 of Florentino, petitioners father, stating that he is not
the owner of the subject house but respondent, as conclusive proof of
respondents sole ownership of the subject house as it is a declaration made
by Florentino against his interest.
ISSUE: WON the Affidavit executed by Florentino should be admitted? YES.
RULING:
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 petitioners 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. 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
childrens interests as his heirs.
A declaration against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest
certainty of the facts in dispute.