Rule
130. Sec. 27. Admission of a party.
Ayala
Land, Inc. & Capitol Citifarms, Inc. v. Castillo et. Al, G.R. No. 178110,
January 12, 2016
SERENO, C.J.
FACTS: Capitol
Citifarms, Inc. (CCFI) undertook to obtain DAR approval for CARP exemption or
conversion to non-agricultural use of a certain property. CCFI mortgaged the
property to Manila Banking Corporation (MBC). MBC was awarded of the property
in an auction sale. In a separate case, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas became a
receiver, to sell the assets of MBC to Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI) BSP requested in
behalf of MBC for exemption of the subject property from CARL coverage which
the DAR denied and directed the distribution of the land to qualified farmer
beneficiaries. Thereafter, DAR deferred the proceeding with the distribution of
lands already covered by CARL and CFI was granted the opportunity to present
proof that the lands are qualified for exemption or conversion. MBC requested
for DAR clearance to sell its landholdings placed under CARL coverage, which
includes the subject property. DFA issued the conversion order.
Castillo et. Al (the tenant-farmers
of the subjected land) contended that the Conversion Order should be revoked
because the sale between CCFI and ALI was illegal and CCFI committed
misrepresentation in its application for conversion. That the DAR Order enjoins
the conversion of lands directly under a notice of acquisition.
CA held that when DAR had
issued a Notice of Acquisition, which served as a perpetual ban on the
conversion of the subject lands.
ISSUE: Whether
or not letter-request of CCFI for the lifting of the Notice of Acquisition
constituted an admission against interest of the fact that the notice was
issued
HELD: No. There
was no admissible proof presented to support Castillo’s claim that a Notice
of Acquisition had been issued. What was attached was a mere photocopy of
the Notice of Coverage. The purported Notice of Acquisition was never offered
in evidence before the DAR and never became part of the records.
Sec. 26. Admissions
of a party. - The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
The above rule considers admissions against interest as admissible evidence,
but does not dispense with the requirement that the admission be offered in
evidence. In this case, precisely because Castillo did not raise the
issue at all, ALI and CFFI did not have any opportunity to inspect
or question the authenticity and due execution of the documents. It would be
offensive to reverse the decisions of DAR and the Office of the President based
on an alleged document - especially if that document has not been presented,
authenticated, or offered in evidence — without giving the other party any
opportunity to contradict the purported admission. CCFI and ALI, cannot be
bound to whatever inference is being made only now on the purported CCFI letter
requesting the lifting of the Notice of Acquisition.
Further, it must be noted
that the letter does not identify the document itself, i.e., the Notice of
Acquisition, as to date, as to signatory, as to amount tendered. It only asks
that the Notice of Acquisition be lifted. It is probable, if this letter is
genuine, that the alleged representative of CCFI was referring to the Notice of
Coverage, which is an admitted fact, and is precisely the reason why the BSP had
to ask for, and was granted, permission by this Court to sell the land.
No comments:
Post a Comment