Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 922 views

    TAPAYAN v. Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    This case discusses the admissibility of a plain copy of a Deed of Undertaking in court. The Supreme Court ruled that the plain copy was admissible because the petitioners failed to raise a timely objection to its submission as evidence. Under the best evidence rule, the original document must normally be produced, but an objection is needed to enforce this rule. Here, by not objecting when the copy was formally offered as evidence in the trial court, the petitioners waived their right to object to its probative value. The plain copy of the Deed of Undertaking was therefore deemed valid evidence that the court could consider.

    Copyright:

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

    TAPAYAN v. Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    922 views1 page
    This case discusses the admissibility of a plain copy of a Deed of Undertaking in court. The Supreme Court ruled that the plain copy was admissible because the petitioners failed to raise a timely objection to its submission as evidence. Under the best evidence rule, the original document must normally be produced, but an objection is needed to enforce this rule. Here, by not objecting when the copy was formally offered as evidence in the trial court, the petitioners waived their right to object to its probative value. The plain copy of the Deed of Undertaking was therefore deemed valid evidence that the court could consider.

    Original Description:

    TAPAYAN v. Martinez case digest; law files; remedial law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the admissibility of a plain copy of a Deed of Undertaking in court. The Supreme Court ruled that the plain copy was admissible because the petitioners failed to raise a timely objection to its submission as evidence. Under the best evidence rule, the original document must normally be produced, but an objection is needed to enforce this rule. Here, by not objecting when the copy was formally offered as evidence in the trial court, the petitioners waived their right to object to its probative value. The plain copy of the Deed of Undertaking was therefore deemed valid evidence that the court could consider.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    922 views1 page

    TAPAYAN v. Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    This case discusses the admissibility of a plain copy of a Deed of Undertaking in court. The Supreme Court ruled that the plain copy was admissible because the petitioners failed to raise a timely objection to its submission as evidence. Under the best evidence rule, the original document must normally be produced, but an objection is needed to enforce this rule. Here, by not objecting when the copy was formally offered as evidence in the trial court, the petitioners waived their right to object to its probative value. The plain copy of the Deed of Undertaking was therefore deemed valid evidence that the court could consider.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RULE 130: RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

    G.R. No. 207786, January 30, 2017

    SPOUSES MARCELIAN TAPAYAN and ALICE TAPAYAN, Petitioners,


    vs. PONCEDA M. MARTINEZ, Respondent.

    FACTS:
    The parties herein executed a Deed of Undertaking (Deed of Undertaking) in
    reference to the DBP Mortgage. The DBP Loan was not paid when it fell due.
    Respondent filed a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages (Complaint)
    against Petitioners before the RTC.
    The RTC noted that the Deed of Undertaking was acknowledged before
    Atty. Emmanuel V. Chiong, a notary public, and reasoned that since the latter
    enjoys the presumption of having performed his duties regularly, Petitioners' claim
    that the Deed of Undertaking was a falsity must be rejected.24 On such basis, the
    RTC held that the Deed of Undertaking constitutes a valid and binding contract,
    which Petitioners are bound to respect. The CA held that the Deed of Undertaking
    merits consideration, since Petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of
    regularity ascribed to it as a public document.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the plain copy of the Deed of Undertaking was admissible as
    proof of its contents, in violation of the best evidence rule under Rule 130 of the
    Rules of Court.

    RATIO DECIDENDI:
    Yes. The plain copy of the Deed of Undertaking was admissible for failure
    to raise a timely objection.
    The best evidence rule requires that the original document be produced
    whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry, except in certain limited cases laid
    down in Section 3 of Rule 130. However, to set this rule in motion, a proper and
    timely objection is necessary.
    The best evidence rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is (sic) the
    contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document
    itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised
    Rules of Court. Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and
    may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts are not
    precluded to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no
    objection was raised when it was formally offered.
    Having failed to timely raise their objection when the Formal Offer of
    Evidence was filed in the RTC, Petitioners are deemed to have waived the same.
    Hence, they are precluded from assailing the probative value of the plain copy of
    the Deed of Undertaking.

    You might also like