DANILO L. PAREL, PETITIONER, VS. SIMEON B. PRUDENCIO, RESPONDENT.

Parel versus Prudencio

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Danilo Parel against Simeon Prudencio, arising from an action for recovery of possession and damages over a two-storey residential house in Baguio City. The respondent claims to be the sole owner of the house and seeks to recover the ground floor from the petitioner, who occupies it as the son and heir of the late Florentino Parel. The petitioner, for his part, insists that his father was a co-owner of the house. The case matters because it is a compact review of three examinable matters: the burden of proof and preponderance of evidence in civil cases, the mandatory rule on the formal offer of evidence, and the admissibility of a declaration against interest made by a deceased declarant.

Procedural History

The respondent filed the complaint for recovery of possession and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment declaring that the house was owned in common by the late Florentino Parel and the respondent, and accordingly held that the respondent could not evict the petitioner as heir of Florentino. The trial court also ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner moral and actual damages, attorney's fees, appearance fees, and the costs of suit.

Aggrieved, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, declared the respondent the sole owner of the subject house, ordered the petitioner to surrender possession of the ground floor immediately, and ordered him to pay monthly rentals from April 1988 until he actually vacates, plus attorney's fees and costs. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The respondent commenced construction of a two-storey residential house in Baguio City in 1972 and completed it about three years later. When the second floor became habitable in 1973, he allowed the petitioner's parents, Florentino and Susan Parel, to move in and occupy the second floor while the ground floor was still being built, so that they could supervise the construction and safeguard the materials. When the construction was finished in 1975, he allowed the petitioner's parents and their children to reside there temporarily, out of sheer magnanimity, since the petitioner's parents had no house of their own and the respondent's wife is the older sister of Florentino.

In November 1985, the respondent sent Florentino a notice to vacate because he was due for retirement and needed the place. The petitioner's parents heeded the notice and migrated to the United States in 1986. Without the respondent's knowledge, however, the petitioner and his family entered and took possession of the ground floor. The petitioner refused to vacate despite repeated demands, prompting the respondent to file the action for recovery of possession in February 1992, praying for monthly rentals from April 1988, damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

The petitioner answered that his parents were co-owners of the house, that the upper storey belonged to the respondent while the ground floor pertained to his parents, and that he occupied the ground floor upon his father's instruction with the respondent's full knowledge. The trial court found that Florentino had been an allocatee of the land, that he gathered the laborers and paid their salaries, and that the respondent failed to show that Florentino stayed merely as a lessee. The Court of Appeals, however, gave weight to Florentino's affidavit of September 1973 declaring that he was not the owner of the building and that it belonged to the respondent, to the building plan in the respondent's name, and to the tax declarations and realty tax payments consistently in the respondent's name since 1974. It also refused to consider the petitioner's documentary evidence because no formal offer had been made.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner was able to prove by preponderance of evidence that his father, Florentino Parel, was a co-owner of the subject two-storey residential house.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the petitioner to surrender possession of the ground floor of the subject building to the respondent.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the petitioner to pay the respondent monthly rentals for the use or occupancy of the premises from April 1988 until he actually vacates.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the petitioner to pay attorney's fees and the costs of suit.

Applicable Provisions

Section 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, on declaration against interest, provides:

Section 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.

This is the provision under which Florentino's affidavit, declaring that he was not the owner of the building, was admitted against the petitioner as Florentino's successor in interest.

Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, on offer of evidence, provides:

Section 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

This is the provision that barred the Court of Appeals, and later the Supreme Court, from considering the petitioner's documentary evidence, which was marked but never formally offered.

Section 7 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, on evidence on motion, provides:

Section 7. Evidence on motion. When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.

This is the provision the Court identified as the true basis of the Bravo ruling invoked by the petitioner, and which the Court held inapplicable to the present case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the petitioner failed to prove co-ownership by preponderance of evidence. The respondent made out a prima facie case of exclusive ownership through Florentino's affidavit, the building plan in the respondent's name, and the tax declarations and realty tax payments consistently in the respondent's name since 1974. The Court held that the affidavit is a declaration against interest, since Florentino declared that he was not the owner of the building, a statement prejudicial to himself and to his children as his heirs, and he never revoked it from 1973 until his death in 1989, even when the respondent filed criminal and civil cases against him and the petitioner. The Court also held that tax declarations and receipts, while not incontrovertible proof of ownership, constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. Once the respondent made out a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifted to the petitioner, and the Court restated the rule on burden of proof:

Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.

The Court further held that the petitioner's documentary evidence could not be considered because no formal offer was filed, and that the mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to an offer. The Court distinguished the Bravo case, where a birth certificate attached to a motion for bail was admitted, because that ruling rested on the provision on evidence on motion, not on the rule on offer of evidence. Even assuming the documents were considered, the Court held that the testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses failed to establish co-ownership, since the carpenter-foreman admitted he could not tell where the money for the materials came from, and the former barangay captain's testimony that Florentino was allocated a lot could not overcome Florentino's own affidavit.

On the second issue, the respondent having been established as sole owner, the petitioner had no right to retain possession, and the Court affirmed the order to surrender the ground floor.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the monthly rental of 2,000 pesos from April 1988, the date of the extrajudicial demand, until the petitioner actually vacates, finding it a reasonable compensation for the use of the ground floor, which consists of a living room, a dining room, a kitchen, and three bedrooms.

On the fourth issue, the Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, since the petitioner's act or omission compelled the respondent to litigate to protect his interest, and since the Court deemed the award just and equitable.

Doctrine

First, a declaration against interest under Section 38 of Rule 130 is admissible notwithstanding the hearsay rule, because the necessity of the occasion and the reliability of a statement contrary to the declarant's own pecuniary or moral interest render it trustworthy; it may be received against the declarant's successors in interest. Second, under Section 34 of Rule 132, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered, and the mere identification and marking of a document as an exhibit does not make it offered evidence. Third, tax declarations and realty tax receipts are not incontrovertible proof of ownership, but they constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. Fourth, in civil cases the burden of proof never shifts from the plaintiff, but the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, and preponderance of evidence means evidence of greater weight or more convincing than that offered in opposition to it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution denying reconsideration, with costs against the petitioner; the respondent won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: marking is not offering, for under Section 34 of Rule 132 the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof and preponderance of evidence in civil cases, the mandatory offer of evidence and its narrow exception in the Bravo ruling, and the admissibility of a declaration against interest by a deceased declarant against his heirs.