Admissions against interest are those made by a party litigant or by one who is privy to or identified in legal interest with such party. They are admissible in evidence whether or not the one making the admission is available as a witness provided his sworn statement is genuine and duly executed. It should be distinguished from declarations against interest which are those made neither by a party nor by a person in privy with a party to the suit. They are secondary evidence that constitute as exceptions to the hearsay rule and are admissible in evidence only when the person making the declaration is unavailable as a witness. This case is an example of an admission against interest that was not accepted anyway because it is not genuine and duly executed.
The case involved a parcel of land containing an area of 301 square meters (Lot No. 10675) owned by Simon married to Trining who died intestate leaving four legitimate children: Lisa, Bert, Leo, and Sandra. The four children allegedly consented that the said parcel of land be titled in the name of the eldest sibling Lisa and so Original Certificate of Title 20742 was issued in her name although it was agreed among them that Lisa is not necessarily the sole owner thereof. Constructed on the lot was a residential house declared for taxation purposes in the names of Lisa and Sandra where the siblings also resided.
Without the knowledge and consent of Bert, Leo and Sandra, the title to the land was transferred into another title (TCT 20695) in the names of the seven children of Lisa. They learned about the transfer after Lisa’s death. So on November 4, 1998, Sandra and the other siblings of Lisa filed with the Municipal Trial Circuit Court (MTCC) a complaint against the children of Lisa for the partition of said property. Sandra asserted that during Lisa’s lifetime, she intimated to Lisa her fears that the land being titled solely in Lisa’s name might erroneously imply that Lisa was the sole and exclusive owner of said land. But according to Sandra, Lisa told her not to worry because she had already executed an affidavit wherein she acknowledged her co-ownership of the subject property with her siblings Bert, Leo and Sandra.
Lisa’s children however contended that said affidavit had no evidentiary value as Lisa was not presented on the witness stand such that all her statements therein were hearsay. Besides, they presented Lisa’s nurse and physician who testified in plain, straightforward and simple manner that when the affidavit was signed and sworn to before the notary public, Lisa was already bedridden and an invalid who could not even raise her hands to feed herself. The notary public also testified that said affidavit was already complete and thumb-marked when it was presented to him by a person who claimed to be Lisa. Based on these testimonies, the MTCC dismissed the complaint and denied Sandra’s and her siblings’ prayer for partition. The MTCC said that no evidentiary value could be given to the said affidavit.
Sandra and her siblings however questioned this ruling. They contended that Lisa’s sworn statement is a declaration against interest which is one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. They argued that since the sworn statement was duly notarized, it should be admitted in court without further proof of its due execution and authenticity. Were they correct?
No. Lisa’s sworn statement is not a declaration against interest but an admission against interest. Lisa is the predecessor-in-interest of her children who are parties to this suit and is thus privy to the latter’s interest. So her statement must nevertheless be proven to be genuine and duly executed in order to be admitted in evidence.
The presumption of regularity in the due execution and genuineness of a notarized document is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. It can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that notarization was regular. In this case this presumption was overthrown by the testimonies of the nurse and the physician on the improbability of the execution of the sworn statement because of the physical condition of the signatory.
While it is true that a notarized document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed the document and personally appeared before him to attest to the truth of its contents. He must discharge his duties and powers with accuracy, fidelity and utmost diligence because they are impressed with public interest.
In this case the notary public admitted that the affidavit was already thumb-marked when presented to him by one who claimed to be Lisa. This would not suffice. He should have further asked the person who appeared before him to produce any identification proving that she was indeed Lisa considering that Lisa was not personally known to him and that the thumb mark was not affixed in his presence. Thus the sworn statement really has no evidentiary value (Lazaro et. al. vs. Agustin et. al., G.R. 152364, April 15, 2010).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net