Heirs of Sabanpan vs.

Comorposa

Facts: The heirs of Lourdes Sabanpan filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with
damages against respondents Alberto Comorposa, et al. The MTC ruled in favor of the
heirs, but the RTC reversed such decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the RTC judgment, ruling that respondents had the better right to possess the subject
land; and it disregarded the affidavits of the petitioners witnesses for being self-serving.
Hence, the heirs filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court,
contending that the Rules on Summary Procedure authorizes the use of affidavits and
that the failure of respondents to file their position papers and counter-affidavits before
the MTC amounts to an admission by silence.

Issue: Whether or not the affidavits in issue should have been considered by the Court
of Appeals.

Ruling: No. The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative
value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to
be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted
evidence proves an issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its
evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the
rules of evidence. While in summary proceedings affidavits are admissible as the
witnesses' respective testimonies, the failure of the adverse party to reply does not ipso
facto render the facts, set forth therein, duly proven. Petitioners still bear the burden of
proving their cause of action, because they are the ones asserting an affirmative relief.

The admissibility of evidence should be distinguished from its probative value. Just
because a piece of evidence is admitted does not ipso facto mean that it conclusively
proves the fact in dispute.