Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Tating Vs Marcella

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    The document discusses a property dispute between heirs of Daniela and the petitioner Nena Tating. It describes the facts of the case, including Daniela selling property to Nena in 1969 and Daniela's death in 1988. The heirs challenged the sale, citing a sworn statement by Daniela that the agreement was to transfer title for a loan, not sell the property. The RTC and CA ruled for the heirs based on Daniela's sworn statement. However, the court found error in relying on the sworn statement since Daniela could not be cross-examined as she had died.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tating Vs Marcella

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    6 views1 page
    The document discusses a property dispute between heirs of Daniela and the petitioner Nena Tating. It describes the facts of the case, including Daniela selling property to Nena in 1969 and Daniela's death in 1988. The heirs challenged the sale, citing a sworn statement by Daniela that the agreement was to transfer title for a loan, not sell the property. The RTC and CA ruled for the heirs based on Daniela's sworn statement. However, the court found error in relying on the sworn statement since Daniela could not be cross-examined as she had died.

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Original Title

    Tating vs Marcella

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a property dispute between heirs of Daniela and the petitioner Nena Tating. It describes the facts of the case, including Daniela selling property to Nena in 1969 and Daniela's death in 1988. The heirs challenged the sale, citing a sworn statement by Daniela that the agreement was to transfer title for a loan, not sell the property. The RTC and CA ruled for the heirs based on Daniela's sworn statement. However, the court found error in relying on the sworn statement since Daniela could not be cross-examined as she had died.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6 views1 page

    Tating Vs Marcella

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    The document discusses a property dispute between heirs of Daniela and the petitioner Nena Tating. It describes the facts of the case, including Daniela selling property to Nena in 1969 and Daniela's death in 1988. The heirs challenged the sale, citing a sworn statement by Daniela that the agreement was to transfer title for a loan, not sell the property. The RTC and CA ruled for the heirs based on Daniela's sworn statement. However, the court found error in relying on the sworn statement since Daniela could not be cross-examined as she had died.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Tating vs Marcella

    Facts: In 1969, Daniela sold her property to her granddaughter, herein petitioner Nena Lazalita
    Tating. As a consequence, title thereto was transferred in the name of Nena. She declared the
    property in her name for tax purposes and paid the real estate taxes due thereon for the years 1972
    and 1988.

    Daniela died on July 29, 1988. On 1989, Daniela’s heirs herein respondents found a sworn statement
    executed by Danila stating that she had actually no intention of selling the property; the true
    agreement between her and Nena was simply to transfer title over the subject property in favor of the
    latter to enable her to obtain a loan by mortgaging the subject property.

    On September 6, 1989, Respondents filed a complaint with the RTC praying for the nullification of
    the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Daniela in her favor, cancellation of the TCT issued in the
    name of Nena, and issuance of a new title and tax declaration in favor of the heirs of Daniela.

    RTC rendered its judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. CA Affirmed its decision. Petitioner asserts that
    the sole evidence which persuaded both the RTC and the CA in holding that the subject deed was
    simulated was the Sworn Statement of Daniela dated December 28, 1977. However, petitioner
    argues that said Sworn Statement should have been rejected outright by the lower courts considering
    that Daniela has long been dead when the document was offered in evidence, thereby denying
    petitioner the right to cross-examine her.

    Issue: Whether or not a sworn statement/affidavit of a deceased may be given probative value for
    purposes of deciding a complaint.

    Ruling: No. It is settled that affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they are not
    generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the
    affiant's statements, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing
    them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant.

    For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants
    themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.

    The Court finds that both the trial court and the CA committed error in giving the sworn statement
    probative weight.

    Since Daniela is no longer available to take the witness stand as she is already dead, the RTC and
    the CA should not have given probative value on Daniela's sworn statement for purposes of proving
    that the contract of sale between her and petitioner was simulated and that, as a consequence, a
    trust relationship was created between them.

    You might also like