GR 1164; (September, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1164, September 17, 1903
MANUEL ALDEGUER, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. HENRY HOSKYN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Doña Petrona Inarda purchased the subject land from Don Pablo Garcia in 1855. She possessed the land until her death in 1876. Thereafter, Don Miguel Aldeguer, the grandfather of the plaintiffs (Doña Petrona’s children), was appointed as their guardian. In 1884, Don Miguel sold the land to Martinez, who in turn sold it to the defendant, Henry Hoskyn, in 1887. In the deed of sale to Martinez, Don Miguel declared that he had acquired the property by purchase from Don Pablo Garcia twenty-four years prior. The plaintiffs filed an action to recover the land. The trial court found that the only evidence presented to support Don Miguel’s title was the recital in that deed. The court, based on parol evidence, found that the original sale was from Don Pablo Garcia to Doña Petrona, the plaintiffs’ mother, and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is supported by its findings of fact.
RULING:
Yes, the judgment is affirmed. The Supreme Court held:
1. The trial court properly admitted parol evidence to prove the contents of the destroyed written contract of sale between Don Pablo Garcia and Doña Petrona. After preliminary proof was made regarding the document’s existence, recordation, attachment to a prior complaint, and subsequent destruction, secondary evidence of its contents was admissible under the Code of Civil Procedure. This did not violate any vested property right, as there is no vested right in rules of evidence.
3. The defense of prescription (acquisitive prescription) was not available to the defendant as it was not pleaded in his answer. The trial court, therefore, correctly made no finding on it.
4. The defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (to show Bonifacio Garcia never owned nor sold the land) was denied. The proffered evidence was immaterial as the trial court found the sale was from Don Pablo, not Bonifacio. Such evidence would not change the result. Any variance between the allegation (sale from Bonifacio) and the proof (sale from Pablo) was deemed cured, as the evidence was introduced without objection, and the court had the power to allow an amendment to the complaint.
The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.