Case Digests

Case # 1

BPI vs Reyes

This is a case for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the decision
of the CA, as well as its Resolution, of affirming with modification the RTC ruling requiring BPI to return
to the Spouses Reyes the amount of Php 100,000 plus interest and damages.

Plaintiff, Jesusa Reyes, intended to open an ATM account with BPI, as the said bank had an ongoing
promotion entitling every depositor with a deposit amounting to Php 2,000 with a ticket to join their
monthly raffle with a car as a prize.

At the bank, Reyes, accompanied by her daughter Joan, was accommodated by one of the bank’s
employees, Cicero Capati.

Reyes informed Capati that she wanted to open an ATM account in the amount of Php 200,000; Php
100,000 of which would be coming from her existing BPI account, while the remaining Php 100,000
would be deposited by her in cash.

Reyes alleged that Capati made a mistake in preparing the withdrawal slip from her existing BPI account
by putting in Php 200,000 instead of Php 100,000. She admitted that she made a mistake of signing said
withdrawal slip, believing in good faith that Capati provided the correct details therein.

When the withdrawal slip was then presented to the teller, only then was it discovered that the existing
bank account could not accommodate a withdrawal of Php 200,000; and that the withdrawal slip was
erroneously filled with a withdrawal for Php 200,000 instead of Php 100,000.

To rectify the mistake on the withdrawal slip, the number two (2) was superimposed with a number one
(1) thereby changing Php 200,000 into Php 100,000; and thereafter, Reyes affixed her signature thereto
to validate the correction on the withdrawal slip.

After a while, Capati returned and handed to Reyes her duplicate copy of the deposit to her new ATM
account.

It was only after a month when she found out that only Php 100,000 was deposited in her ATM account.
Reyes then went to the bank to inquire why there was only Php 100,000 in her account instead of Php
200,000. In turn, BPI promised to investigate on the issue – and even promised to subject Capati to a lie
detector test. However, Reyes was never informed of the results of the lie detector test, thus she filed
the complaint against BPI.

BPI, in its answer, claimed that Reyes indeed effected a fund transfer in the amount of Php 100,000 from
her existing BPI account into her new ATM account. However, it was the only amount that she deposited
and that no additional cash deposit of Php 100,000 was made. BPI claims that Reyes originally wanted to
effect the transfer of Php 200,000 from her existing account but her balance was insufficient; thus, she
agreed to reduce the amount to Php 100,000, as shown in the amended withdrawal slip. Also, BPI
produced the original copy of the deposit slip showing the amended value of Php 200,000 to Php 100,00
which was signed solely by Capati because Reyes had already left when she received her copy of the
deposit slip, without giving a chance for Capati nor for her to reflect the changes to said copy of the
deposit slip.

The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Reyes; holding that the evidence that should control was the
deposit slip issued by BPI to Reyes, for there was no chance by which Reyes could write the amount
of P200,000.00 without petitioner's employee noticing it and making the necessary correction

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification on the damages. The appellate court
gave credence to the testimonies of Reyes and her daughter, that it was unlikely for them to concoct a
story of falsification against a banking institution of the stature of BPI if their claims were not true; and
that the original copy of the withdrawal of the deposit slip that Reyes presented was not altered in any
way.

The subsequent MR of BPI was then denied.

Issue:

W/N there was sufficient evidence to support the claim of Reyes.

Ruling:

SC holds that the issue raises a factual question. And that the SC, not being a trier of facts, is limited to
the review of errors of law only that may have been committed by the lower courts. However, there are
exceptions to this rule, which are applicable to the case at hand, to wit:

1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

2) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; 4) when the judgment
of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts; and

3) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;

SC holds that it is a basic rule in evidence that each party to a case must prove his own affirmative
allegations by the degree of evidence required by law.

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of
evidence, or that evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is in
opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more
believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of truth is on one side than on the other.

Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines for determining preponderance of
evidence, thus:
 SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined.- In civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where
the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies the court may
consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their
interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same legitimately
appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

For a better perspective on the calibration of the evidence on hand, it must first be stressed that the
judge who had heard and seen the witnesses testify was not the same judge who penned the decision.
Thus, not having heard the testimonies himself, the trial judge or the appellate court would not be in a
better position than this Court to assess the credibility of witnesses on the basis of their demeanor.

SC thus thoroughly reviewed the transcripts of the witnesses' testimonies and examined the pieces of
evidence on record.

SC gave weight to the teller’s tape presented as evidence by BPI, which establishes the fact of Reyes’
original intention to withdraw the amount of Php 200,000.00, and not Php 100,000.00 as she claims,
from her savings account, to be transferred as her initial deposit to her new Express Teller account. The
teller’s tape further shows the insufficiency of Reyes’ balance in her savings account. And finally, it
shows the fund transfer of the amount of P100,000.00 from her savings account to her new Express
Teller account.

SC thus gives great evidentiary weight to the teller's tape, considering that it is inserted into the bank's
computer terminal, which records the teller's daily transactions in the ordinary course of business, and
there is no showing that the same had been purposely manipulated to prove petitioner's claim. Further,
such teller’s tape corroborates the changes made to the original copy of the deposit slip presented as
evidence by BPI.

SC holds that physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. We have, on many occasions, relied principally upon physical
evidence in ascertaining the truth. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the
testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we consistently rule that the physical evidence
should prevail.

In addition, to uphold the declaration of the CA that it is unlikely for respondent Jesusa and her daughter
to concoct a false story against a banking institution is to give weight to conjectures and surmises, which
we cannot countenance.

In fine, respondents failed to establish their claim by preponderance of evidence.

Considering the foregoing, we find no need to tackle the other issues raised by petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals, as well as its Resolution,
are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed by respondents, together with the
counterclaim of petitioner, is DISMISSED.
Case # 30

Bonilla vs Aranza

January 1977, Appellant filed a petition with the CFI for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo
Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. Appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, et. al.
filed their opposition alleging, among others, that the alleged holographic will itself, and not an alleged
copy thereof must be produced.

The CFI, upon motion of the appellees, moved for the consolidation of similar cases; and thereafter, filed
for a motion to dismiss, claiming that a lost or destroyed will cannot be proved by secondary evidence,
unlike ordinary wills.

The CFI denied the motion to dismiss, to which the appellees filed a motion for reconsideration.

Ruling upon the motion for reconsideration, the CFI reversed its earlier ruling, and dismissing the
petition for the probate of the will. The CFI held that once the original copy of the holographic will is
lost, a copy thereof cannot stand in lieu of the original.

Appellant filed its own motion for reconsideration; but was denied.

On appeal to the CA, the CA dismissed the appeal, upholding the CFI decision.

Issue:

W/N a lost holographic will may be proved by means of a photostatic copy [photocopy] thereof.

Ruling:

SC holds that pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is the allowance of
the will by the court after its due execution has been proved. The probate may be uncontested or not. If
uncontested, at least one Identifying witness is required and, if no witness is available, experts may be
resorted to. If contested, at least three Identifying witnesses are required.

However, if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will
cannot be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will.
It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and
the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed
because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator.

In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled that "the execution and the contents of a lost
or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen
and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law
regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity." But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says
that "Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon
copy; or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased
may be exhibited and tested before the probate court," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the
lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of
the deceased can be determined by the probate court.

WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court denying appellant's motion for reconsideration for the order
dismissing her petition to approve the will of the late Ricardo B. Bonilla, is hereby SET ASIDE.