TodayisSunday,February14,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.L57821January17,1985
SEGUNDINOTORIBIO,EUSEBIATORIBIO,andtheHEIRSOFOLEGARIOTORIBIO,representedbyhis
widow,ADELADELOSREYES,petitioners,
vs.
THEHON.JUDGEABDULWAHIDA.BIDIN,inhiscapacityasPresidingJudge,BranchI,CourtofFirst
Instance,CityofZamboanga,DALMACIORAMOS,andJUANITOCAMACHO,respondents.

GUTIERREZ,J.:
ThispetitionispremisedontheinterpretationandapplicationofSections7and8,Rule8oftheRevisedRulesof
Courtonactionabledocuments,whichstate:
SEC.7.Actionordefensebasedondocument.Wheneveranactionordefenseisbasedupona
writteninstrumentordocument,thesubstanceofsuchinstrumentordocumentshallbesetforthin
thepleading,andtheoriginaloracopythereofshallbeattachedtothepleadingasanexhibit,which
shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the
pleading.
SEC.8.Howtocontestgenuinenessofsuchdocuments.Whenanactionordefenseisfounded
upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the
precedingsection,thegenuinenessanddueexecutionoftheinstrumentshallbedeemedadmitted
unlesstheadverseparty,underoath,specificallydeniesthem,andsetsforthwhatheclaimstobe
thefactsbutthisprovisiondoesnotapplywhentheadversepartydoesnotappeartobeapartyto
the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused.
The present controversy stems from a complaint filed by the petitioners against private respondents Dalmacio
RamosandJuanitaCamacho.
Engracio Francisco and Juliana Esteban were the registered owners of the parcel of land Zamboanga. At the
deathofsaidspouses,theyweresurvivedbytheirten(10)childrenwhoinheritedtheirstateinequalproindiviso
shares.Subsequently,thepropertywassubdividedamongtheheirsandaportiondesignatedasLotNo.1943B
was allotted to the Justa Francisco. Justa died and was survived among by eight (8) children namely: Dionoso,
Eufremia, Alfonso, Rafael, Petrona, Olegario, Segundino and Eusebia, all surnamed Toribio, who eight heirs,
Eufremia,AlfonsoandPetrona,soldtheirinthepropertytoRamonLedesma.RafaelalsosoldhissharetoDinisio
who,inturn,soldthesametoRamonLedesma.Thus,thelatteracquiredfour(4)sharesoutofeight(8)shares,
oraproindivisoshareofLot1943B.
Subsequently,DionisiosoldhisownhereditaryshareintheaforesaidestateofhismothertoJuanitoCamacho,
whobysaidsaleacquireda1/8proindivisoshareoftheproperty.
Thethreeotherheirs,petitionersSegundinoEusebiaandOlegarioallegingthattheirshareshadneverbeensold
norinanywisetransferredordisposedtoothersfiledacaseagainsthereinprivaterespondentsforrecoveryof
hereditaryrights.HowJuanitoCamacho,whowasentitledtoonlyatotalareaof931squaremeters,nor,howone
DalmacioRamos,Jr.,acquiredshareofthepropertywasallegedlynotknowntothem.
Intheiranswer,thedefendantsrespondentsallegedthatthesharesofplaintiffspetitionershadlikewisebeensold
to Dionisio Toribio, their brother, who, in turn, sold the same to Juanito Camacho and Dalmacio Ramos. The
allegedsalefrompetitionerstoDionisioandthesalefromDionisiototherespondentswereevidencedbydeeds
of sale, xerox copies of which were appended to and made an integral part of the respondents' partition

agreementbetweentherespondentsandalsoaxeroxcopyoftherespondents'transfercertificatesoftitle.
While testifying during the trial, Eusebia Toribio was asked whether she executed any sale of her share in the
parcel of land in litigation. The counsel for private respondents objected, raising the proper mode of contesting
thegenuinenessofanactionabledocumentpursuanttoSections7and8,Rule8oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
Thetrialcourtsustainedtheobjection.
Petitioners,thereupon,filedaconstanciawithamotionforreconsiderationstatingthatthedocumentssubmitted
bytherespondentsweremerelyevidentiaryinnature,notacauseofactionordefense,thedueexecutionand
genuinenessofwhichtheyhadtoprove.Theyallegedthatthesubjectoflitigationwasthehereditarysharesof
plaintiffspetitioners,notanydocument.Theystatedthatthedefenseconsistingmainlyoftransfercertificatesof
titles in the respondents' names originating from the sale from petitioners to Dionisio and from the latter to the
respondentsweremerelyevidentiaryinnature.Theyarguedthatasimplespecificdenialwithoutoathissufficient.
Thecourtdeniedthemotionforreconsideration.Thedocumentsattachedtotherespondents'answerandmade
an integral part thereof were declared to be the very foundation or basis of the respondents' defense and not
merelyevidentiaryinnature.Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
The initial issue brought before us is whether or not the deeds of sale allegedly executed by the petitioners in
favoroftheirbrotherDionisioToribioandappendedtotherespondents'answeraremerelyevidentiaryinnature
ortheveryfoundationoftheirdefensewhichmustbedeniedunderoathbythepetitioner.
Therecordsshowthatthedeedsofsaleareactionabledocuments.
Jurisprudence has centered mainly on a discussion of actionable documents as basis of a plaintiff's cause of
action. Little has been said of actionable documents being the foundation of a defense. The Rule, however,
coversbothanactionoradefensebasedondocuments.
Thesituationobtaininginthecaseatbarisnotacommonone.Theusualcaseisbetweenplaintiffanddefendant
where, the latter, as his defense, would present a document to which both parties are parties and which states
that the former relinquishes his rights to the defendant. In the case at bar, we have a situation where the
defendant presented a document in his defense, a document to which the plaintiff is a party but to which
defendantisnot.Thus,thequestionarisesastowhetherornotthedocumentisincludedasanecessarypartof
thedefensesoastomakeitactionable.
Thepetitionersallegedintheircomplaintthattheirsharesintheinheritanceleftbytheirmotherwereneversold
norinanywisetransferredordisposedtoothers.
Thedefendants,intheiranswers,declare:
xxxxxxxxx
...thatthehereditarysharesofplaintiffsOLEGARIOTORIBIO,SEGUNDINOTORIBIOandEUSEBIA
TORIBIOwerelikewisesold,transferredandconveyed,firstinfavorofDIONISIOTORIBIObyvirtue
of two (2) deeds of sale executed in due form on October 24, 1964 and November 2, 1964,
respectively, and thereafter, by DIONISIO TORIBIO in favor of defendants JUANITO A. CAMACHO
andDALMACIOC.RAMOS,JR.,onNovember11,1964asadvertedtointheprecedingparagraph,
aswillbediscussedfurtherinthespecificand/oraffirmativedefenseshereunder...
Asheretoforealleged,thehereditarysharesofalltheplaintiffshereininandoverLot1943Bwereall
sold, transferred and conveyed in favor of DIONISIO TORIBIO plaintiffs OLEGARIO TORIBIO and
SEGUNDINOTORIBIOonOctober24,1964andthatofplaintiffEUSEBIATORIBIOonNovember2,
1964,byvirtueoftwo(2)deedsofsaleallofwhichwereacknowledgedbeforeNotaryPublicforand
within the City of Zamboanga, Atty. Armando B. Torralba and entered as Doc. No. 6, Page No. 3,
BookNo.IX,Seriesof1964,respectively,inhisnotarialregister,xeroxcopiesofwhichareappended
heretotoformintegralparthereofasAnnexes"1"&"2",respectively.
Fromtheforegoing,itisclearthattherespondentsanchortheirdefenseonthedeedsofsalebyvirtueofwhich
thehereditaryrightsofallthepetitionersoverLot1943Bweresold,transferred,andconveyedinfavoroftheir
brother, Dionisio Toribio, who in turn sold the same to herein respondents. The deed of sale executed by the
petitionersinfavoroftheirbrotherDionisioisanessentialandindispensablepartoftheirdefensetotheallegation
thatthepetitionershadneverdisposedoftheirproperty.
The following question furnishes an absolute test as to the essentiality of any allegation: Can it be made the
subjectofamaterialissue?Inotherwords,ifitbedenied,winthefailuretoproveitdecidethecaseinwholeorin
part?Ifitwillnot,thefactisnotessential.Itisnotoneofthosewhichconstitutethecauseofaction,defense,or
reply (Sutherland's Code of Pleading, Practice and Forms, p. 82). A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out
withoutleavingthestatementofthecauseofactionordefenseinsufficient.

Apartfromallegingthatthedocumentsinthiscasearemerelyevidentiary,thepetitionersalsopointoutthatthe
deedsofsalepurportedlyexecutedbythemwereinfavoroftheirbrother,Dionisio,whointurnexecuteddeedsof
saleinfavoroftherespondents.Underthiscircumstance,doesthegenuinenessanddueexecutionofthedeeds
evidencingthetwotransactionshavetobedeniedunderoath?
The deed of sale executed by Dionisio Toribio in favor of the respondents, by itself, would be insufficient to
establishadefenseagainstthepetitioners'claims.Ifthepetitionersdenythattheyeversoldtheirsharesinthe
inheritedlottotheirbrotherDionisio,afailuretoprovethesalewouldbedecisive.Forifitcanbeshownthatno
conveyanceofthepropertywasexecutedbythepetitioners,thenDionisioToribiohadnorighttoconveywhatdid
not belong to him. The respondents could acquire only the rights that Dionisio had over the disputed property.
The genuineness and due execution of the deed between the coheirs is also elemental to the defense of the
respondents.Thefirstdeedsofsale,towhichtherespondentswerenotpartiesbutwhichtheyseektoenforce
againstthepartiesarealsoactionabledocuments.
ThepetitionersfurtherallegedthatthiscasefallsundertheexceptiontoSection8,Rule8whichprovides:
SECTION 8. ... but this provision does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a
partytotheinstrument.
AsearlyasLimChingcov.Terariray(5Phil.120),thisCourtgavethereasonfortheruleoncontestingactionable
documents.Thepurposeis:
Reasonablyconstrued,thepurposeoftheenactment(sec.103)appearstohavebeentorelievea
party of the trouble and expense of proving in the first instance an alleged fact, the existence or
nonexistenceofwhichisnecessarilywithintheknowledgeoftheadverseparty,andofthenecessity
(to his opponent's case) of establishing which such adverse party is notified by his opponent's
pleading.
This being so, the documents have to be treated in like manner. The petitioners are themselves parties to the
deedsofsalewhicharesoughttobeenforcedagainstthem.Thecomplaintwasfiledbythepetitioners.Theyfiled
suit to recover their hereditary properties. The new owners introduced deeds of sale as their main defense. In
other words, the petitioners brought the issue upon themselves. They should meet it properly according to the
RulesofCourt.
Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 8, therefore, apply. The proper procedure was for the petitioners to specifically deny
underoaththegenuinenessanddueexecutionofthequestioneddeedsofsaleandtosetforthwhattheyclaimto
be the facts. However, the oversight or negligence of petitioners' counsel in not properly drafting a reply to the
answerandananswertothecounterclaimisnotnecessarilyfataltotheircause.
The facts of the case and equitable considerations constrain us to grant the petition and to set aside the
questionedorderoftherespondentcourt.
Asstatedearlier,thereasonfortheruleistoenabletheadversepartytoknowbeforehandwhetherhewillhave
to meet the issue of genuineness or due execution of the document during trial. (In re Dick's Estate, 235 N.W.
401).Whilemandatory,theruleisadiscoveryprocedureandmustbereasonablyconstruedtoattainitspurpose,
and in a way as not to effect a denial of substantial justice. The interpretation should be one which assist the
partiesinobtainingaspeedy,inexpensive,andmostimportant,ajustdeterminationofthedisputedissues.
Paragraphs11and13ofthepetitioners'complaintreads:
xxxxxxxxx
11. That the share of herein Plaintiffs were never sold or in any wise transferred or disposed to
others
xxxxxxxxx
13.ThatjusthowandbywhatmeansDefendant,JUANITOCAMACHOwasabletoacquirethetotal
area of 931 square meters, is not known however, the acquisition might have been effected, the
samewasinfraudofhereinplaintiffsandsowiththeshareofDefendant,DALMACIOC.RAMOS,
Jr., herein Plaintiffs, jointly and/or severally, do not know the person and, however he might have
acquiredthesaidshareofONEFOURTH()oftheproperty,wasnotfromeither,muchlessallof
thePlaintiffs
xxxxxxxxx
Thecomplaintwasverifiedunderoathbythepetitioners.

Thepetitioners'counselwasobviouslylulledintocomplacencybytwofactors.First,theplaintiffs,nowpetitioners,
hadalreadystatedunderoaththattheyneversold,transferred,ordisposedoftheirsharesintheinheritanceto
others.Second,theusualprocedureisforadefendanttospecificallydenyunderoaththegenuinenessanddue
executionofdocumentssetforthinandannexedtothecomplaint.Somehow,itskippedcounsel'sattentionthat
therulereferstoeitheranactionoradefensebaseduponawritteninstrumentordocument.Itappliestoboth
plaintiffsanddefendants.
Under the facts of this case, the private respondents were placed on adequate notice by Paragraph 11 of the
verified complaint that they would be caned upon during trial to prove the genuineness or due execution of the
disputeddeedsofsale.
Moreover,theheirsofOlegarioToribio,hiswidowandminorchildrenrepresentedbytheirmother,areamongthe
plaintiffspetitioners.Theyarenotpartiestothedeedsofsaleallegedlyexecutedbytheirfather,aunt,anduncle.
Theyarenotrequiredtodenythedeedsofsaleunderoath.Theprivaterespondentswillstillhavetointroduce
evidence to establish that the deeds of sale are genuine and that they were truly executed by the parties with
authoritytodisposeofthedisputedproperty.
Itbearsrepeatingthatrulesofprocedureshouldbeliberallyconstruedtotheendthatsubstantialjusticemaybe
served.AsstatedinPongasiv.CourtofAppeals(71SCRA614):
We repeat what We said in Obut v. Court of Appeals, et al., supra, that 'what should guide judicial
actionistheprinciplethatapartylitigantistobegiventhefullestopportunitytoestablishthemerits
ofhiscomplaintordefenseratherthanforhimtoloselife,liberty,honororpropertyontechnicalities.
In dispensing justice Our action must reflect a deep insight into the failings of human nature, a
capability for making allowances for human error and/or negligence, and the ability to maintain the
scalesofjusticehappilywellbalancedbetweenthesevirtuesandtheapplicationofthelaw.
Aninterpretationofaruleofprocedurewhichwouldnotdenytothepetitionerstheirrightstotheirinheritanceis
warrantedbythecircumstancesofthiscase.
WHEREFORE,theorderoftherespondentcourtdatedJuly20,1981isherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.The
Regional Trial Court which took over the cases of the respondent court is ordered to receive the petitioners'
evidenceregardingthegenuinenessanddueexecutionofthedisputeddeedsofsale.
SOORDERED.
Teehankee,MelencioHerrera,Plana,RelovaandDelaFuente,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation