Professional Documents
Culture Documents
035 Chingkoe v. Chingkoe GR 244076
035 Chingkoe v. Chingkoe GR 244076
DECISION
M.V. LOPEZ, J :p
A further review of her testimony reveals that she could not even read
the document and did not know about the contract price. What she
understood is that the document given to Felix was only temporary but will
be replaced with a "real document concerning the sale," viz.:
Atty. Flores
Q Â Did you tell Faustino what kind of document was going to be
prepared?
A Â I just told him to make a certain document, I do not know
what it was all about, only something that Felix can hold on
to, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Â Do you know how to read English and understand the same?
A Â No, sir.
Q Â Do you know that this document states that it is a deed of sale
and that the contract price is P3,130,000.00?
xxx xxx xxx
A Â No sir, I even asked my other child to read, it for me.
xxx xxx xxx
Atty. Flores
Q Â In any event, this person you asked to read, and interpret this
document is someone you trusted?
A Â I did not know what to think, it was just read to rue and I did
not pay too much attention to it anyway, sit.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Â You told him [that] the document was for real or only that it was
simulated?
A Â I told Felix that that was a temporary document only but I
promised him also that when the time comes, the real document
would be given to him.
Q Â What do you mean by temporary document?
A Â What I mean by temporary was only a temporary document to
save him from going crazy, sir.
Q Â And you say that a final and real document will follow?
A Â That is right, yes. sir.
Q Â What kind of document do you have in mind that will be for
real?
A Â A real document concerning the sale, sir. 17 (Emphases
supplied)
It can be gleaned from Tan Po Chu's testimony that she was
incompetent in attesting as to the validity of the sale for the simple reason
that she never understood it and even admitted that she "did not pay too
much attention to it." Significantly, she had no part in the preparation of the
Deed of Sale and she was neither present when it was signed and notarized
nor was she part of the discussion of its terms of agreements. Clearly, the
trial court correctly considered Tan PO Chu's testimony insufficient to
overturn the presumption of regularity of the notarized Deed of Sale.
We emphasize that the evaluation of the witnesses and their
testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its
unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their
demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. 18 Too, it is a
basic rule in evidence that a witness can testily only on the facts that she/he
knows of her/his own personal knowledge, i.e., those which are derived from
her/his own perception. A witness may not testify on what she/he merely
learned, read, or heard from others because such testimony is considered
hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what she/he has
learned, read, or heard. 19
In contrast, there is ample evidence to prove the validity of the Deed of
Sale and the parties' intention in the execution of the contract. The rule is
that one who signs a contract is presumed to know its contents, especially if
the person who signed has caused the preparation of the document. It is,
thus, reasonable to conclude that Faustino knew the contents of the Deed of
Sale which was executed with legal formalities. 20
First, the notary public, Atty. Calabio, attested in open court that both
parties appeared before him when he notarized the Deed of Sale. 21
Second , Faustino admitted that his staff prepared the Deed of Sale,
and that he and his wife voluntarily signed it, to wit:
Q Â The terms and conditions of Exhibit 4 [Deed of Absolute Sale]
are provisions of the contract, are these your [Faustino]
authorship?
A Â They were taken from standard form, sir.
Q Â But you initiated the drawing up of that document?
A Â Yes, sir. 22
Q Â There is a signature on the first page, on the top margin, do you
know whose signature is this?
A Â First is mine [Faustino], and the second is that of my wife.
Q Â Why do you know that this is the signature of your wife?
A Â We have been signing documents together and I know her
signature, sir.
Q Â What about this signature?
A Â This is the signature of one of my staff who helped preparing
[sic ] this document, sir.
Q Â Why do you say that this is her signature?
A Â She was one of my staff, sir. 23
Third, the CA's conclusion that the Deed of Sale was an absolute
simulation contradicts the evidence presented. Apropos, Articles 1345 and
1346 of the Civil Code provide:
Art. 1345. Â Simulation of a contract may be absolute or
relative. The former takes place when the parties do not intend to be
hound at all; the latter, when the parties conceal their true
agreement.
Art. 1346. Â An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is
void. A relative simulation, when it does not prejudice a third person
and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to their real
agreement. ATICcS
1. Rollo , pp. 8-25. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon (Chair) with
the concurrence of Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of
the Court), and Renato C. Francisco.
3. Id. at 9-10.
4. Id. at 43-44.
5. Id. at 110-113.
6. Id. at 113.
8. Id. at 21-23.
9. Id. at 24.
10. Id. at 28-29. The January 14, 2019 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 106434 was
penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of the Court),
with the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and
Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of the Court).
13. The recognized exceptions are: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (b) When the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) When there is grave abuse of
discretion; (d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) When in making its findings
the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant or the appellee; (g) When the CA's findings
are contrary to those by the trial court; (h) When the findings are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) When the
facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply
briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; (j) When the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record; or (k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion. (Navaja v. Hon. de Castro, 761 Phil. 143,
155 [2015]). (Citation omitted)
14. Heirs of Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro, 583 Phil. 540, 560 (2008).
15. Heirs of Spouses Liwagon v. Heirs of Spouses Liwagon, 748 Phil. 675, 684
(2014).
16. TSN, January 13, 2000, pp. 9 and 11-12; rollo, pp. 775 and 777-778.
17. TSN, January 13, 2000, pp. 16, 18 and 25-27: rollo, pp. 782, 784 and 791-793.
18. Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Peronila Syquia Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172,
184 (2017).
19. Mancol v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 821 Phil 323, 335 (2017).
20. See ECE Realty and Development[,] Inc. v. Mandap, 742 Phil. 164, 172-173
(2014).
21. TSN, November 21, 2011, pp. 4-5; rollo, pp. 758-759.
24. Spouses de Leon v. Spouses dela Llana , 753 Phil. 692, 704 (2015).
26. Art. 1318 (CIVIL CODE). There is no contract unless the following requisites
concur:
27. An. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case
one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.