Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Chua Gaw vs. Chua

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a family business called Hagonoy Lumber between siblings Concepcion Chua Gaw and Suy Ben Chua. 2) Suy Ben Chua claimed ownership based on a Deed of Partition and a subsequent Deed of Sale transferring rights in Hagonoy Lumber. 3) The court ruled that copies of the deeds were properly admitted as evidence to prove ownership, as there was no dispute over the deeds' contents, and the best evidence rule did not apply in this situation.

    Copyright:

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

    Chua Gaw vs. Chua

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    2K views2 pages
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a family business called Hagonoy Lumber between siblings Concepcion Chua Gaw and Suy Ben Chua. 2) Suy Ben Chua claimed ownership based on a Deed of Partition and a subsequent Deed of Sale transferring rights in Hagonoy Lumber. 3) The court ruled that copies of the deeds were properly admitted as evidence to prove ownership, as there was no dispute over the deeds' contents, and the best evidence rule did not apply in this situation.

    Original Description:

    evd

    Original Title

    6. Chua Gaw vs. Chua

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a family business called Hagonoy Lumber between siblings Concepcion Chua Gaw and Suy Ben Chua. 2) Suy Ben Chua claimed ownership based on a Deed of Partition and a subsequent Deed of Sale transferring rights in Hagonoy Lumber. 3) The court ruled that copies of the deeds were properly admitted as evidence to prove ownership, as there was no dispute over the deeds' contents, and the best evidence rule did not apply in this situation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Chua Gaw vs. Chua

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a family business called Hagonoy Lumber between siblings Concepcion Chua Gaw and Suy Ben Chua. 2) Suy Ben Chua claimed ownership based on a Deed of Partition and a subsequent Deed of Sale transferring rights in Hagonoy Lumber. 3) The court ruled that copies of the deeds were properly admitted as evidence to prove ownership, as there was no dispute over the deeds' contents, and the best evidence rule did not apply in this situation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Chua Gaw vs.

    Chua
    G.R. No. 160855
    April 16, 2008

    Facts:

    Spouses Chua Chin and Chan Chi were the founders of three business enterprises namely:
    Hagonoy Lumber, Capitol Sawmill Corporation, and Columbia Wood Industries. The couple had
    seven children, namely, Santos Chua; Concepcion Chua; Suy Ben Chua; Chua Suy Phen; Chua
    Sioc Huan; Chua Suy Lu; and Julita Chua. On June 19, 1986, Chua Chin died, leaving his wife
    Chan Chi and his seven children as his only surviving heirs. His surviving heirs executed a Deed
    of Extra-Judicial Partition and Renunciation of Hereditary Rights in Favor of a Co-Heir (Deed of
    Partition, for brevity).

    In May 1988, petitioner Concepcion Chua Gaw and her husband, Antonio Gaw, asked
    respondent, Suy Ben Chua, to lend them P200,000.00 which they will use for the construction of
    their house in Marilao, Bulacan. On August 1, 1990, their sister, Chua Sioc Huan, executed a Deed
    of Sale over all her rights and interests in Hagonoy Lumber for a consideration of P255,000.00 in
    favor of respondent.
    Meantime, the spouses Gaw failed to pay the amount they borrowed from respondent
    within the designated period. Respondent sent the couple a demand letter. Failing to heed his
    demand, respondent filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against the spouses Gaw with the RTC.
    In their Answer, the spouses Gaw contended that the P200,000.00 was not a loan but petitioner’s
    share in the profits of Hagonoy Lumber, one of her family’s businesses. Respondent replied that
    his sister, Chua Sioc Huan, became the sole owner of Hagonoy Lumber when the heirs executed
    the Deed of Partition on December 8, 1986. In turn, he became the sole owner of Hagonoy Lumber
    when he bought it from Chua Sioc Huan, as evidenced by the Deed of Sale dated August 1, 1990.
    Petitioner countered that the documents on which respondent anchors his claim of ownership over
    Hagonoy Lumber were not true and valid agreements and do not express the real intention of the
    parties. They claimed that these documents are mere paper arrangements which were prepared
    only upon the advice of a counsel until all the heirs could reach and sign a final and binding
    agreement, which, up to such time, has not been executed by the heirs.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the trial court erred when it considered admissible mere copies of the Deed
    of Partition and Deed of Sale to prove that respondent is now the owner of Hagonoy Lumber

    Ruling:

    No. The “best evidence rule” as encapsulated in Rule 130, Section 3 of the Revised Rules
    of Civil Procedure applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry.
    Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the
    circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
    testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible
    without need to account for the original. Moreover, production of the original may be dispensed
    with, in the trial court’s discretion, whenever the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents
    of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.

    Accordingly, we find that the best evidence rule is not applicable to the instant case. Here, there
    was no dispute as to the terms of either deed; hence, the RTC correctly admitted in evidence mere
    copies of the two deeds. The petitioner never even denied their due execution and admitted that
    she signed the Deed of Partition.

    You might also like