Case Digest (G.R. No. 160855)
Facts:
Concepcion Chua Gaw v. Suy Ben Chua and Felisa Chua, G.R. No. 160855, April 16, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Concepcion Chua Gaw and respondent Suy Ben Chua are members of a family that operated several businesses including Hagonoy Lumber, Capitol Sawmill Corporation, and Columbia Wood Industries. Their father, Chua Chin, died on June 19, 1986; the heirs executed on December 8, 1986 a notarized Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Renunciation of Hereditary Rights (the Deed of Partition) which, among other things, recorded that the siblings waived their hereditary shares in favor of their sister Chua Sioc Huan, leaving her with sole ownership of Hagonoy Lumber as of that date.
In May–June 1988 petitioner and her then-husband Antonio Gaw requested respondent to lend them P200,000 for house construction; respondent issued China Banking Corporation Check No. 240810 dated June 7, 1988, which Antonio encashed. Petitioner and her husband failed to repay within the agreed six months; respondent sent a demand letter (March 25, 1991) and thereafter filed a Complaint for Sum of Money with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging a loan of P200,000 with nonpayment.
The spouses Gaw answered claiming the P200,000 was not a loan but petitioner’s share in Hagonoy Lumber profits — petitioner averred she had been promised an accounting and payment of her share, and that respondent gave the amount as an advance on that share. They later amended their counterclaim to seek an accounting and delivery of petitioner’s one‑sixth share of Hagonoy Lumber, alleging respondent had appropriated it. Respondent maintained the 1986 Deed of Partition vested sole title in Chua Sioc Huan, and that he acquired Hagonoy Lumber from her by a notarized Deed of Sale dated August 1, 1990.
At trial respondent testified (as an adverse witness called by petitioners) that the Deed of Partition and the Deed of Sale conveyed ownership to Chua Sioc Huan and later to him, and that he paid the purchase price in cash; petitioner admitted signing the Deed of Partition but claimed the transfer was only temporary and offered no corroborating witnesses. On February 11, 2000 the RTC rendered judgment for respondent ordering petitioner to pay P200,000 with interest, attorney’s fees and costs, and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim. The RTC found the P200,000 to be a loan and, as to ownership of Hagonoy Lumber, treated the notarized deeds as entitled to evidentiary weight and found petitioner failed to establish a right to accounting or delivery of shares.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on May 23, 2003 affirmed the RTC decision and on December 2, 2003 denied reconsideration. The CA agreed that respondent’s testimony was properly considered and that petitioner had not contradicted or impeached the notarized Deed of Partition and Deed of Sale; it found petitioner had admitted due execution of the Deed of Partition and failed to properly deny the Deed of Sale. Petitioner fi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court’s treatment of respondent’s testimony as an adverse witness reversible error that prejudiced petitioner?
- Was the P200,000 advanced by respondent a loan or an advance on petitioner’s share in Hagonoy Lumber?
- Did the admission into evidence of copies of the Deed of Partition and Deed of Sale violate the best evidence rule and render the tran...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)