MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. vs. RAFAEL MA.

GUERRERO,

Doctrine:

Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. The resolution of whether
a foreign law allows only the recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as
far as the trial court is concerned since foreign laws do not prove themselves in
our courts. Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact,
they must be alleged and proven.
BarQ:

X filed a complaint for damages against Y with the Regional Trial

Court. Guerrero sought payment of damages allegedly for illegally withheld taxes
charged against interests on his checking account with the Bank. Y alleged in its
answer, that by stipulation of Xs account is governed by New York law and this
law does not permit any of claims except actual damages. Y filed a motion for
summary judgement seeking the dismissal of the case.
The RTC denied the motion.
Is the RTC Correct?
Yes.
There can be no summary judgment where questions of fact are in issue or where
material allegations of the pleadings are in dispute. The resolution of whether a
foreign law allows only the recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as far
as the trial court is concerned since foreign laws do not prove themselves in our
courts. Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they
must be alleged and proven. Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether
NY law or Philippine law applies to Guerrero’s claims present a clear dispute on
material allegations which can be resolved only by a trial on the merits.
REPUBLIC, vs. MARCOS-MANOTOC

Bar Q:
PCGG, filed a Complaint before the Sandiganbayan for Reversion,
Reconveyance, Restitution, Accounting and Damages against (X); and (Y), (Z), (B),
(T),(G) and (F), in the alleged illegal activities and undertakings of M in relation
to the ill-gotten wealth allegation.

PCGG presented and formally offered its evidence, a photocopies of the

documents, against respondents. However, the latter objected on the ground that
the documents were unauthenticated and mere photocopies. The Sandiganbayan
admitted all documentary exhibits formally offered by the prosecution; however,
their evidentiary value was left to the determination of the Court.
The respondents filed their respective demurrers to evidence which was
granted the by the Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan ruled that all presented evidence are hearsay, for
being merely photocopies and that the originals were not presented in court, nor
were they authenticated by the persons who executed them. Furthermore, the
court pointed out that petitioner failed to provide any valid reason why it did not
present the originals in court.
Is the court correct?

Suggested Answer:

Yes. It is petitioner’s burden to prove the allegations in its Complaint. For relief
to be granted, the operative act on how and in what manner the M siblings
participated in and/or benefitted from the acts of the M couple must be clearly
shown through a preponderance of evidence. Should petitioner fail to discharge
this burden, the Court is constrained and is left with no choice but to uphold the
Demurrer to Evidence filed by respondents.

First, petitioner does not deny that what should be proved are the contents of the
documents themselves. It is imperative, therefore, to submit the original
documents that could prove petitioner’s allegations.

Thus, the photocopied documents are in violation Rule 130, Sec. 3 of the Rules
of Court, otherwise known as the best evidence rule, which mandates that the
evidence must be the original document itself
RAZON vs IAC
Doctrine: Dead man’s statute may not be invoked when the case was not filed
against the administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon claims against the
estate. Granting that petitioner’s testimony [as regards the true nature of
transaction w/ the deceased] is within the prohibition of DMS, private respondent
is deemed to have waived the rule

Bar Q.

XXX Co. was organized by X. X distributed their shares to Y, to whom he

transferred, 300 shares of stock. It was agreed between the two that Y was only
given the option to buy the said shares, but X would be the owner of stock
certificate was issued by the XXX Co. In the name of Y, covering the 300 shares
of stock. The said transfer was also recorded in the corporate books of the
corporation. The said certificate, however, was held by X, who delivered it to the
Philippine Bank of Commerce. Y thereafter died, and his administrator filed an
action to recover the certificate of shares of stock from X, representing Y
shareholdings in the corporation.

The RTC declared X as the owner but the CA reversed it and ruled that Y
was the owner of the said shares.

X maintains that his aforesaid oral testimony as regards the true nature
of his agreement with the late Y on the 3 shares of stock of corporation. is
sufficient to prove his ownership over the said 300 shares of stock.

X’s testimony admissible?

Yes. Dead man’s statute (DMS) may not be invoked when the case was not filed
against the administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon claims against the
estate.
The case was filed by the administrator of the estate of the late Y to recover
shares of stock in XXX Co. allegedly owned by the late Y. It is clear, therefore,
that the testimony of the petitioner is not within the prohibition of the rule. The
case was not filed against the administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon
claims against the estate. Furthermore, the records show that the private
respondent never objected to the testimony of the X as regards the true nature of
his transaction with the late elder Y. The X’s testimony was subject to cross-
examination by the private respondent's counsel. Hence, granting that the
petitioner's testimony is within the prohibition of Section 20(a), Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court, the Y is deemed to have waived the rule.