View full case

AYALA LAND v. LUCENITO N. TAGLE

FACTS:

Civil Case No. 931-94 was filed by ASB Realty Corporation (ASB) and E. M. Ramos and Sons, Inc. (EMRASON) against Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI), Emerito B. Ramos, Jr., et al. ASB alleged that EMRASON entered into a Letter-Agreement with ASB for the conditional sale of a portion of their land. However, ALI claimed to have entered into a Contract to Sell said properties with the children of EMRASON. ASB filed a complaint seeking nullification of the Contract to Sell and cancellation of the annotations on the Transfer Certificates of Title. ASB filed a motion for leave to take testimony by deposition of Emerito Ramos, Sr., who was 87 years old at the time. The trial court granted the motion and ASB conducted the deposition on six different occasions. ALI then filed a motion objecting to the deposition proceedings. The trial court cancelled the cross-examination of the deposition. The trial court later ruled on the objections of ALI and directed the setting of the cross-examination. ALI filed a motion to cancel and reschedule the hearing, which was granted. ALI then filed a petition before the Court of Appeals to declare null and void the entire deposition proceedings. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that the deposition was admissible. Emerito Ramos, Sr. passed away and ASB filed a motion to introduce his deposition as evidence, which was opposed by ALI. The trial court admitted the deposition in evidence, and ALI's motion for reconsideration was denied. ALI elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed the petition. ALI filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the alleged deposition of the witness Emerito M. Ramos, Sr. is admissible under the rules.

  2. Whether or not the respondent appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it sustained the ruling of the lower court in finding the deposition admissible.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals held that the deposition of Emerito M. Ramos, Sr. is admissible under the rules. It ruled that Atty. Ramos testified on matters of his personal knowledge and was freely recollecting and testifying on matters within the ambit of his own personal competence. The court held that Atty. Ramos was not refreshing his memory on a fact or transaction with the aid of memoranda.

  2. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding the deposition admissible.

PRINCIPLES: