3 Parel V Prudencio

4/23/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
*
G.R. No. 146556. April 19, 2006.
DANILO L. PAREL, petitioner, vs. SIMEON B.

PRUDENCIO, respondent.
Evidence; Hearsay Rule; Declaration Against Interest; The

theory under which declarations against interest are received in
evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity of
the occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and,
further that the reliability of such declaration asserts facts which
are against his own pecuniary or moral interests.—Section 38 of
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 38. Declaration
against interest.—The declaration made by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact
asserted in the declaration was
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
406
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Parel vs. Prudencio
at the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant’s own

interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have
made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be
received in evidence against himself or his successors-in-interest
and against third persons. The theory under which declarations
against interest are received in evidence notwithstanding they are
hearsay is that the necessity of the occasion renders the reception
of such evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of such
declaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary or
moral interest.
Same; Same; Same; A declaration against interest is the best
evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178fef2881119a52064003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
—The affiant, Florentino, who died in 1989 was petitioner’s father

and had adequate knowledge with respect to the subject covered
by his statement. In said affidavit, Florentino categorically
declared that while he is the occupant of the residential building,
he is not the owner of the same as it is owned by respondent who
is residing in Quezon City. It is safe to presume that he would not
have made such declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it
is prejudicial to himself as well as to his children’s interests as his
heirs. A declaration against interest is the best evidence which
affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. Notably,
during Florentino’s lifetime, from 1973, the year he executed said
affidavit until 1989, the year of his death, there is no showing
that he had revoked such affidavit even when a criminal
complaint for trespass to dwelling had been filed by respondent
against him (Florentino) and petitioner in 1988 regarding the
subject house which the trial court dismissed due to the absence
of evidence showing that petitioner entered the house against the
latter’s will and held that the remedy of respondent was to file an
action for ejectment; and even when a complaint for unlawful
detainer was filed against petitioner and his wife also in 1988
which was subsequently dismissed on the ground that
respondent’s action should be an accion publiciana which is
beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
Same; Property; Ownership; Tax Declarations; While tax
receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of
ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property.—We agree with the CA that while
tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of
ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the
407
VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 407
Parel vs. Prudencio
property. The house which petitioner claims to be co-owned by his

late father had been consistently declared for taxation purposes in
the name of respondent, and this fact, taken with the other
circumstances above-mentioned, inexorably lead to the conclusion
that respondent is the sole owner of the house subject matter of
the litigation.
Same; Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence;
Preponderance of Evidence; Words and Phrases; He who alleges
the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the
plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts, though, in

the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima
facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to
the defendant to controvert the plaintiff’s prima facie case,
otherwise a verdict must be returned in favor of the plaintiff; The
concept of “preponderance of evidence” refers to evidence which is
of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in
opposition to it—at bottom, it means probability of truth.—
Respondent having established his claim of exclusive ownership of
the subject property, it was incumbent upon petitioner to
contravene respondent’s claim. The burden of evidence shifted to
petitioner to prove that his father was a co-owner of the subject
house. We held in Jison v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 495 (1998),
to wit: x x x Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the
issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil
case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of
trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in
his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to
controvert plaintiff’s prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must
be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party
having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of
evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of
his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s.
The concept of “preponderance of evidence” refers to evidence
which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is
offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.
Same; Formal Offer of Evidence; A formal offer of evidence is
necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest his findings of
facts and judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by
the parties to the suit.—The records show that although
petitioner’s counsel asked that he be allowed to offer his
documentary evidence in writing, he, however, did not file the
same. Thus, the CA did not consider
408
Parel vs. Prudencio
the documentary evidence presented by petitioner. Section 34 of

Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 34. Offer of
evidence.—The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified. A formal offer is necessary because it is
the duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment
only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties to the
suit. It is a settled rule that the mere fact that a particular

document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean
that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of
a party.
Same; Same; Documentary Evidence; Evidence on Motion;
When a motion is based on facts not appearing on record, the court
may hear the matter on affidavits of depositions presented by the
respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be
heard wholly or partly on oral testimony.—Petitioner insists that
although his documentary evidence were not formally offered, the
same were marked during the presentation of the testimonial
evidence, thus it can properly be taken cognizance of relying in
Bravo, Jr. v. Borja, 134 SCRA 466 (1985). Such reliance is
misplaced. In Bravo Jr., supra, we allowed evidence on minority
by admitting the certified true copy of the birth certificate
attached to a motion for bail even if it was not formally offered in
evidence. This was due to the fact that the birth certificate was
properly filed in support of a motion for bail to prove petitioner’s
minority which was never challenged by the prosecution and it
already formed part of the records of the case. The rule referred to
in the Bravo case was Section 7 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court
which provides: Section 7. Evidence on motion.—When a motion is
based on facts not appearing of record, the court may hear the
matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective
parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly
or partly on oral testimony or depositions and not Section 34 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which is the one applicable to the
present case.
Ownership; Rental Value; Words and Phrases; The rental
value refers to the value as ascertained by proof of what the
property would rent or by evidence of other facts from which the
fair rental value may be determined.—We also find that the CA
did not err in ordering petitioner to pay respondent being the sole
owner of the subject house a monthly rental of P2,000.00 from
April 1988, the date of the
409
VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 409
Parel vs. Prudencio
extrajudicial demand, until petitioner actually vacates the subject

house. Although the CA made no ratiocination as to how it
arrived at the amount of P2,000.00 for the monthly rental, we find
the same to be a reasonable compensation for the use of the
ground floor of the subject house which consists of a living room, a

dining room, a kitchen and three bedrooms. The rental value
refers to the value as ascertained by proof of what the property
would rent or by evidence of other facts from which the fair rental
value may be determined.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

E.L. Gayo & Associates for petitioner.
Rowena G. Madrid for respondent.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by

Danilo Parel
1
(petitioner) which seeks to set aside the
Decision dated March 31, 2000 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) which reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 60, Baguio, in Civil Case No. 2493-R,
a case for recovery of 2 possession and damages. Also
assailed is CA Resolution dated November 28, 2000.
On February 27, 1992, Simeon Prudencio (respondent)
filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages
against petitioner with the RTC Baguio alleging that: he is
the owner of a two-storey residential house located at No.
61 Forbes Park National Reservation near Department of
Public Service (DPS) compound, Baguio City; such property
was constructed
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Corona Ibay-Somera (retired) and

concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Elvi
John S. Asuncion; Rollo, pp. 32-41.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, concurred in
by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Elvi John S. Asuncion;
Id., at pp. 60-61.
410

Parel vs. Prudencio
solely from his own funds and declared in his name under
Tax Declaration No. 47048; he commenced the construction
of said house in 1972 until its completion three years later;
when the second floor of said house became habitable in
1973, he allowed petitioner’s parents, Florentino (now
deceased) and Susan Parel, to move therein and occupy the

second floor while the construction of the ground floor was
on-going to supervise the construction and to safeguard the
materials; when the construction of the second floor was
finished in 1975, respondent allowed petitioner’s parents
and children to transfer and temporarily reside thereat; it
was done out of sheer magnanimity as petitioner’s parents
have no house of their own and since respondent’s wife is
the older sister of Florentino, petitioner’s father; in
November 1985, respondent wrote Florentino a notice for
them to vacate the said house as the former was due for
retirement and he needed the place to which petitioner’s
parents heeded when they migrated to U.S. in 1986;
however, without respondent’s knowledge, petitioner and
his family unlawfully entered and took possession of the
ground floor of respondent’s house; petitioner’s refusal to
vacate the house despite repeated demands prompted
respondent to file the instant action for recovery of
possession. Respondent also asked petitioner for a monthly
rental of P3,000.00 from April 1988 and every month
thereafter until the latter vacates the said premises and
surrender possession thereof; and for moral and exemplary
damages, attorney’s fees and cost of suit.
Petitioner filed his Answer with Counterclaim alleging
that: his parents are the co-owners of the said residential
house, i.e., the upper story belongs to respondent while the
ground floor pertains to petitioner’s parents; he is
occupying the ground floor upon the instruction of his
father, Florentino, with respondent’s full knowledge; his
parents spent their own resources in improving and
constructing the said two-storey house as co-owners
thereof; the late Florentino was an awardee of the land on
which the house stands and as a co-owner of the house, he
occupied the ground floor thereof; the
411
VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 411

Parel vs. Prudencio
demand to vacate was respondent’s attempt to deprive

petitioner’s parents of their rights as co-owner of the said
house; that respondent had filed ejectment case as well as
criminal cases against them involving the subject house
which were all dismissed. Petitioner asked for the
dismissal of the complaint and prayed for damages and
attorney’s fees.
3
3
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision
dated December 15, 1993, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby declares

that the house erected at No. 61 DPS Compound, Baguio City is
owned in common by the late Florentino Parel and herein plaintiff
Simeon Prudencio and as such the plaintiff cannot evict the
defendant as heirs of the deceased Florentino Parel from said
property, nor to recover said premises from herein defendant.
Likewise, the plaintiff is ordered to:
(a) pay the defendant in the total sum of P20,000.00 for moral
and actual damages;
(b) pay the defendant P20,000.00 in Attorney’s fees and
P3,300.00 in appearance fees;
4
(c) pay the costs of this suit.”
The RTC found the following matters as conclusive: that

petitioner’s father was an allocatee of the land on which the
subject house was erected, as one of the lowly-paid
government employees at that time when then Mayor Luis
Lardizabal gave them the chance to construct their own
house on said reservation; that respondent failed to show
proof of any contract, written or oral, express or implied,
that the late Florentino and his family stayed on the house
not as co-owners but as mere lessees, nor any other proof
that would clearly establish his sole ownership of the
house; and, that the late Florentino was the one who
gathered the laborers for the construc-
_______________
3 Penned by Judge Pastor V. De Guzman, Jr.; Id., at pp. 81-84.

4 Id., at p. 84.
412

Parel vs. Prudencio
tion of the house and paid their salaries. Thus, the RTC
ruled that co-ownership existed between respondent and
petitioner’s father, Florentino.
The RTC concluded that respondent and petitioner’s
father agreed to contribute their money to complete the
house; that since the land on which said house was erected
has been allocated to petitioner’s father, the parties had
the understanding that once the house is completed,

petitioner’s father could keep the ground floor while
respondent the second floor; the trial court questioned the
fact that it was only after 15 years that respondent
asserted his claim of sole ownership of the subject house;
respondent failed to disprove that petitioner’s father
contributed his own funds to finance the construction of the
house; that respondent did not question (1) the fact that it
was the deceased Florentino who administered the
construction of the house as well as the one who supplied
the materials; and (2) the fact that the land was in
Florentino’s possession created the impression that the
house indeed is jointly owned by respondent and
Florentino.
The RTC did not give credence to the tax declaration as
well as the several documents showing the City Assessor’s
assessment of the property all in respondent’s name since
tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership. It
rejected the affidavit executed by Florentino declaring the
house as owned by respondent saying that the affidavit
should be read in its entirety to determine the purpose of
its execution; that it was executed because of an
advisement addressed to the late Florentino by the City
Treasurer concerning the property’s tax assessment and
Florentino, thought then that it should be the respondent
who should pay the taxes; and that the affidavit cannot be
accepted for being hearsay.
Aggrieved by such decision, respondent appealed to the
CA. In a Decision dated March 31, 2000, the CA reversed
the trial court and declared respondent as the sole owner of
the subject house and ordered petitioner to surrender
possession of the ground floor thereof to respondent
immediately. It also or-
413
VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 413

Parel vs. Prudencio
dered petitioner to pay respondent a monthly rental of

P2,000.00 for use or occupancy thereof from April 1988
until the former actually vacates the same and the sum of
P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and cost of suit.
The CA found as meritorious respondent’s contention
that since petitioner failed to formally offer in evidence any
documentary evidence, there is nothing to refute the
evidence offered by respondent. It ruled that the trial
court’s statement that “defendants’ occupancy of the house
is due to a special power of attorney executed by his

parents most specially the deceased Florentino Parel who
is in fact a co-owner of said building” is wanting of any
concrete evidence on record; that said power of attorney
was never offered, hence, could not be referred to as
petitioner’s evidence to support his claim; that except for
the bare testimonies of Candelario Regua, the carpenter-
foreman, that it was Florentino who constructed the house
and Corazon Garcia, the former barangay captain, who
testified that the lot was allocated to petitioner’s father,
there was no supporting document which would sufficiently
establish factual bases for the trial court’s conclusion; and
that the rule on offer of evidence is mandatory.
The CA found the affidavit dated September 24, 1973 of
Florentino, petitioner’s father, stating that he is not the
owner of the subject house but respondent, as conclusive
proof of respondent’s sole ownership of the subject house as
it is a declaration made by Florentino against his interest.
It also found the tax declarations and official receipts
representing payments of real estate taxes of the
questioned property covering the period 1974 to 1992
sufficient to establish respondent’s case which constitute at
least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the
property.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a
Resolution dated November 28, 2000.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari with
the following Assignment of Errors:
414

Parel vs. Prudencio
1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING RESPONDENT
AS THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AT 61
FORBES PARK NATIONAL RESERVATION,
NEAR DPS COMPOUND, BAGUIO CITY,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FINDING OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CO-OWNERSHIP
BETWEEN THE LATE FLORENTINO PAREL
AND RESPONDENT;
GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING PETITIONER
TO SURRENDER POSSESSION OF THE
GROUND FLOOR OF THE SUBJECT BUILDING
TO RESPONDENT;

TO PAY RESPONDENT P2,000.00/MONTH FOR
USE OR OCCUPANCY OF THE SUBJECT
PREMISES FROM APRIL 1988 UNTIL
PETITIONER ACTUALLY VACATES THE SAME;
TO PAY TO RESPONDENT P50,000.00
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS OF SUIT;
5. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN DENYING PETITIONER’S
5
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.
Petitioner concedes that while his former counsel failed to

make a formal offer of his documentary evidence before the
trial court and that the court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered, he maintains that the
said rule
6
is not absolute, citing the case of Bravo, Jr. v.
Borja; that his documentary evidence which were not
formally offered in evidence were marked during the
presentation of the testimony of petitioner’s witnesses and
were part of their testimonies; that these evidence were
part of the memorandum filed by him before the trial court
on July 12, 1993.
Petitioner insists that even in the absence of the
documentary evidence, his testimony as well as that of his
witnesses
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 15-16.

6 G.R. No. L-65228, February 18, 1985, 134 SCRA 466.
415
VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 415

Parel vs. Prudencio
substantiated his claim of co-ownership of the subject

house between his late father and respondent as found by
the trial court.
Petitioner argues that the CA erred in finding the
affidavit of petitioner’s father declaring respondent as
owner of the subject house as conclusive proof that
respondent is the true and only owner of the house since
the affidavit should be read in its entirety to determine the

purpose for which it was executed.
Petitioner further contends that since he had
established his father’s co-ownership of the subject house,
respondent has no legal right to eject him from the
property; that he could not be compelled to pay rentals for
residing in the ground floor of the subject house; that
respondent should bear his own expenses and be adjudged
liable for damages which petitioner sustained for being
constrained to litigate.
The principal issue for resolution is whether petitioner
was able to prove by preponderance of evidence that his
father was a co-owner of the subject two-storey residential
house.
The issue raised by petitioner is mainly factual in
nature. In general, only questions of law are appealable to
this Court under Rule 45. However, considering that the
findings of the RTC7 and CA are contradictory, the review of
the case is in order.
We agree with the CA that respondent had shown
sufficient evidence to support his complaint for recovery of
possession of the ground floor of the subject house as the
exclusive owner thereof. Respondent presented the
affidavit dated September 24, 1973 executed by Florentino
and sworn to before
_______________
7 Heirs of Miguel Franco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123924,

December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 60, 67. Among the exceptional
circumstances that would compel the Supreme Court to review the
findings of fact of the lower courts is when the findings of fact are
conflicting. See e.g., Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, 226 Phil. 496, 510; 142
SCRA 593, 609 (1986).
416

Parel vs. Prudencio
the Assistant City Assessor of Baguio City, G.F. Lagasca,

which reads:
“I, FLORENTINO PAREL, 42 years of age, employee, and

residing at Forbes Park, Reservation No. 1, after having been
sworn to according to law depose and say:
That he is the occupant of a residential building located at
Forbes Park, Reservation No. 1, Baguio City which is the subject
of an advicement addressed to him emanating from the Office of

the City Assessor, Baguio City, for assessment and declaration for
taxation purposes;
That I am not the owner of the building in question;
That the building in question is owned by Mr. Simeon B.
Prudencio who is presently residing at 55 Hyacinth, Roxas
District, Quezon City. 8
Further, affiant say not.” (Italics supplied)
Section 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 38. Declaration against interest.—The declaration made by a

person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it
was made so far contrary to the declarant’s own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have made the
declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in
evidence against himself or his successors-in-interest and against
third persons.
The theory under which declarations against interest are

received in evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is
that the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of
such evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of
such declaration asserts facts
9
which are against his own
pecuniary or moral interest.
_______________
8 Records, p. 154.
9 Evidence, Ricardo J. Francisco, Vol. VII, Part I, 1997 edition, p. 554,
citing 20 Am. Jur. 468.
417
VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 417

Parel vs. Prudencio
The affiant, Florentino, who died in 1989 was petitioner’s

father and had adequate knowledge with respect to the
subject covered by his statement. In said affidavit,
Florentino categorically declared that while he is the
occupant of the residential building, he is not the owner of
the same as it is owned by respondent who is residing in
Quezon City. It is safe to presume that he would not have
made such declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it
is prejudicial 10to himself as well as to his children’s interests
as his heirs. A declaration against interest is the best
evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in
11
11
dispute. Notably, during Florentino’s lifetime, from 1973,
the year he executed said affidavit until 1989, the year of
his death, there is no showing that he had revoked such
affidavit even when a criminal complaint for trespass to
dwelling had been filed by respondent against him
(Florentino) and petitioner in 1988 regarding the subject
house which the trial court dismissed due to the absence of
evidence showing that petitioner entered the house against
the latter’s will and held that the remedy
12
of respondent
was to file an action for ejectment; and even when a
complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against
petitioner and his wife also in 1988 which was
subsequently dismissed on the ground that respondent’s
action should be an accion publiciana which
13
is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
Moreover, the building plan of the residential house
dated January 16, 1973 was in the name of respondent and
his wife. It was established during petitioner’s cross-
examination that
_______________
10 Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-25788, April 30, 1980, 97
SCRA 373, 380.
11 Supra note 7, citing Noda v. Cruz-Arnaldo, G.R. No. L-57322, June
22, 1987, 151 SCRA 227.
12 Records, p. 199.
13 Id., at pp. 346-347.
418

Parel vs. Prudencio
the existing structure of the two-storey

14
house was in
accordance with said building plan.
Notably, respondent has been religiously paying the real
estate property
15
taxes on the house declared under his name
since 1974. In fact, petitioner during his cross-
examination admitted that there was no occasion that they
paid the real estate 16taxes nor declared any portion of the
house in their name.
We agree with the CA that while tax receipts and
declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership,
they constitute at least17proof that the holder has a claim of
title over the property. The house which petitioner claims
to be co-owned by his late father had been consistently
declared for taxation purposes in the name of respondent,
and this fact, taken with the other circumstances above-

mentioned, inexorably lead to the conclusion that
respondent is the sole owner of the house subject matter of
the litigation.
Respondent having established his claim of exclusive
ownership of the subject property, it was incumbent upon
petitioner to contravene respondent’s claim. The burden of
evidence shifted to petitioner to prove that his father was a
co-owner of the subject house. 18
We held in Jison v. Court of Appeals, to wit:
“x x x Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has

the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the
burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a
civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor,
the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to
controvert plaintiff’s prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must
be returned in
_______________
14 TSN, March 10, 1993, pp. 30-34.

15 Records, pp. 167 to 181; Exhibits “N,” “N-1” to “N-18.”
16 TSN, April 21, 1993, pp. 12-13.
17 Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68946, May 22,
1992, 209 SCRA 214, 227.
18 350 Phil. 138; 286 SCRA 495 (1998).
419
VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 419

Parel vs. Prudencio
favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the

burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence
thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s. The
concept of “preponderance of evidence” refers to evidence which is
of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered19
in
opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.”
In this case, the records show that although petitioner’s

counsel asked that he be allowed to offer his documentary 20
evidence in writing, he, however, did not file the same.
Thus, the CA did not consider the documentary evidence
presented by petitioner. Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court provides:
Section 34. Offer of evidence.—The court shall consider no

evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be specified.
A formal offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge

to rest his findings of facts and his judgment only and
strictly
21
upon the evidence offered by the parties to the
suit. It is a settled rule that the mere fact that a
particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit
does not mean that it has thereby
22
already been offered as
part of the evidence of a party.
Petitioner insists that although his documentary
evidence were not formally offered, the same were marked
during the
_______________
19 Id., at p. 173; p. 532.

20 Records, p. 318.
21 Francisco, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. VI, 1980 edition, p.
123, citing U.S . v. Solana, 33 Phil. 582 (1916) and Dayrit v. Gonzalez, 7
Phil. 182 (1906).
22 People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, 318; 254 SCRA 82, 101 (1996);
Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, 274 Phil. 51, 55; 196 SCRA 650, 654 (1991).
420

Parel vs. Prudencio
presentation of the testimonial evidence, thus it can

properly
23
be taken cognizance of relying in Bravo, Jr. v.
Borja.
Such reliance is misplaced. In Bravo Jr., we allowed
evidence on minority by admitting the certified true copy of
the birth certificate attached to a motion for bail even if it
was not formally offered in evidence. This was due to the
fact that the birth certificate was properly filed in support
of a motion for bail to prove petitioner’s minority which was
never challenged by the prosecution and it already formed
part of the records of the case. The rule referred to in the
Bravo case was Section 7 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court
which provides:
Section 7. Evidence on motion.—When a motion is based on facts

not appearing of record, the court may hear the matter on
affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but
the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on
oral testimony or depositions.
and not Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which

is the one applicable to the present case.
Even assuming arguendo that the documentary evidence
of petitioner should be considered in his favor, the evidence
showing that respondent had filed civil and criminal cases
against petitioner which were dismissed as well as the
alleged Special Power of Attorney of petitioner’s parents
whereby they authorized petitioner to stay in the ground
floor of the house, did not establish co-ownership of
Florentino and respondent of the subject house.
The testimonies of petitioner and his witnesses failed to
show that the subject house is co-owned by petitioner’s
father and respondent.
Candelario Regua merely testified that he was hired by
petitioner’s father,
24
Florentino, to construct the residential
building in 1972; that he listed the materials to be used
for the
_______________
23 Supra note 6.
24 TSN, February 24, 1993, pp. 9-11.
421
VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 421

Parel vs. Prudencio
25
construction which was purchased by Florentino; that he
and his men received their salaries every Saturday 26
and
Wednesday from Florentino or his wife, respectively; that
he had not met nor seen respondent27
during the whole time
the construction was on-going. On cross-examination,
however, he admitted that he cannot tell where the money 28
to buy the materials used in the construction came from.
Corazon Garcia merely testified that Florentino started
building the house when he was allocated a lot at DPS
compound, that 29
she knew Florentino constructed
30
the
subject house and never knew respondent. The bare
allegation that Florentino was allocated a lot is not
sufficient to overcome Florentino’s own affidavit naming
respondent as the owner of the subject house.
Petitioner himself testified that it was his father who
saw the progress of 31the construction and purchased the
materials to be used; and as a young boy he would follow-
32
32
up some deliveries upon order of his father and never saw
respondent in the construction site. The fact that not one of
the witnesses saw respondent during the construction of
the said house does not establish that petitioner’s father
and respondent co-owned the house.
We also find that the CA did not err in ordering
petitioner to pay respondent being the sole owner of the
subject house a monthly rental of P2,000.00 from April
1988, the date of the extrajudicial demand, until petitioner
actually vacates the subject house. Although the CA made
no ratiocination as to how it arrived at the amount of
P2,000.00 for the monthly
_______________
25 Id., at p. 11
26 Id., at p. 12.
27 Id., at pp. 12-14.
28 Id., at p. 23.
29 TSN, March 10, 1993, pp. 10-11.
30 Id., at p. 13.
31 Id., at p. 29.
32 Id.
422

Parel vs. Prudencio
rental, we find the same to be a reasonable compensation

for the use of the ground floor of the subject house which
consists of a living room, a dining room, a kitchen and
three bedrooms. The rental value refers to the value as
ascertained by proof of what the property would rent or by
evidence of other33
facts from which the fair rental value may
be determined.
We likewise affirm the CA’s award of attorney’s fees in
favor of respondent. Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows
the recovery of attorney’s fees in cases when the
defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with34 third persons or to incur expenses to protect
his interest and in any other case where the court deems
it just and equitable that attorney’s
35
fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered which are both shown in the
instant case.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated March 31, 2000 and its Resolution dated November
28, 2000 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago,

Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—Declaration against interest may be received in

evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. (Alberto vs.
Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 745 [1994])
Evidence not formally offered during the trial can not be
used for or against a party litigant, and neither may it be
_______________
33 Asian Transmission Corporation v. Canlubang Sugar Estates, G.R.

No. 142383, August 29, 2003, 410 SCRA 202, 223 citing Herpolsheimer v.
Christopher, 111 N.W. 359 (1907).
34 Art. 2208 (2).
35 Art. 2208 (11).
423
VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 423

Gaw vs. Court of Appeals
taken into account on appeal. (Ala-Martin vs. Sultan, 366

SCRA 316 [2001])
A statement of fact in a verified petition and an
accompanying silence about any contrary fact may be
appreciated in more than one context—as a declaration
against interest and as a judicial admission combined.
(Heirs of Miguel Franco vs. Court of Appeals, 418 SCRA 60
[2003])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

3 Parel V Prudencio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Parel V Prudencio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Parel V Prudencio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/23/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487

DANILO L. PAREL, petitioner, vs. SIMEON B.

Evidence; Hearsay Rule; Declaration Against Interest; The

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parel vs. Prudencio

at the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant’s own

—The affiant, Florentino, who died in 1989 was petitioner’s father

VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 407

Parel vs. Prudencio

property. The house which petitioner claims to be co-owned by his

plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts, though, in

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parel vs. Prudencio

the documentary evidence presented by petitioner. Section 34 of

suit. It is a settled rule that the mere fact that a particular

VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 409

Parel vs. Prudencio

extrajudicial demand, until petitioner actually vacates the subject

ground floor of the subject house which consists of a living room, a

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by

1 Penned by Associate Justice Corona Ibay-Somera (retired) and

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

deceased) and Susan Parel, to move therein and occupy the

VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 411

demand to vacate was respondent’s attempt to deprive

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby declares

The RTC found the following matters as conclusive: that

3 Penned by Judge Pastor V. De Guzman, Jr.; Id., at pp. 81-84.

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the understanding that once the house is completed,

VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 413

dered petitioner to pay respondent a monthly rental of

is due to a special power of attorney executed by his

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

Petitioner concedes that while his former counsel failed to

5 Id., at pp. 15-16.

VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 415

substantiated his claim of co-ownership of the subject

the affidavit should be read in its entirety to determine the

7 Heirs of Miguel Franco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123924,

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the Assistant City Assessor of Baguio City, G.F. Lagasca,

“I, FLORENTINO PAREL, 42 years of age, employee, and

of an advicement addressed to him emanating from the Office of

Section 38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 38. Declaration against interest.—The declaration made by a

The theory under which declarations against interest are

VOL. 487, APRIL 19, 2006 417

The affiant, Florentino, who died in 1989 was petitioner’s

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the existing structure of the two-storey

and this fact, taken with the other circumstances above-

“x x x Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has

14 TSN, March 10, 1993, pp. 30-34.