As to the hearsay rule section 44 of rule 130 of the

This preview shows page 14 - 15 out of 103 pages.

As to the Hearsay Rule, Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court similarly provides that entries in official records are an exception to the rule. The rule provides that entries in official records made in the performance of the duty of a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The necessity of this rule consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the official's attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the course of his duty. The document's trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty. Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The DENR is the department tasked to execute, supervise and manage the conduct of cadastral surveys. It is, therefore, clear that the cadastral map and the corresponding list of claimants qualify as entries in official records as they were prepared by the DENR, as mandated by law. As such, they are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. 25. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS MUPAS Doctrine: Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry relates to the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. In proving the terms of a written document, the original of the document must be produced in court.—Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry relates to the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. In proving the terms of a written document, the original of the document must be produced in court. Facts: On October 5, 1994, Asia's Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Government - through the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)and the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)- for the construction and development of the NAIA-IPT III under a build-operate-and-transfer (BOT) arrangement. The DOTC and the MIAA invited the public to submit competitive and comparative proposals to AEDC's unsolicited proposal in accordance with the BOT Law and its implementing rules Paircargo consortium also submitted their competitive proposal to build the NAIA-IPT III Both AEDC and Paircargo offered to build, however, Paircargo submitted a bid superior to AEDC’s unsolicited proposal, thus DOTC awarded the project to Paircargo (PIATCO) PIATCO engaged the services of Takenaka, as well as, Asahikosan, both foreign corporations organized in Japan, for the construction of the NAIA-IPT, however, PIATCO defaulted on its obligations, and to settle the problem Takenaka and Asahikosan agreed to defer PIATCO’s payments until June 2003.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture