Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope you can shed some light on a problem I’m facing with our family’s ancestral land in Lipa City, Batangas. We’re currently in court trying to finalize the title under my name, as agreed upon by most of my siblings. The main point of contention is proving continuous possession. To help with this, I asked Mang Ben, our caretaker for over 30 years, to testify. He knows the land like the back of his hand and can attest to how our family has occupied and used it since he started working for my late father.

During the last hearing, Mang Ben testified clearly about everything he saw and did on the property. However, the lawyer for my estranged cousin, who is opposing the registration, strongly objected. He argued that Mang Ben’s testimony should be disregarded, and worse, that my entire case should be dismissed for ‘failure to prosecute’. His reason? Because I didn’t present any Special Power of Attorney (SPA) or any formal document specifically authorizing Mang Ben to testify on my behalf. He claims that without such authorization, Mang Ben is not a valid witness for my case.

I was shocked! Mang Ben was there simply to state what he personally knew and experienced. The judge seemed troubled by the objection and asked my lawyer to respond formally. Atty., I am now extremely worried. Can my land registration case really be dismissed just because my witness, who has personal knowledge, didn’t have a formal letter from me saying he could testify? Isn’t his personal account enough? What does the law say about this? I feel it’s so unfair if a technicality like this could cost us our ancestral land.

Thank you for your time and any guidance you can provide.

Sincerely,
Elena Sison

Dear Elena,

Thank you for reaching out. I understand your concern regarding the challenge to your witness’s testimony and the potential dismissal of your land registration case. It’s quite unsettling when procedural tactics seem to overshadow the substance of the matter, especially concerning something as important as ancestral land.

The core issue here involves understanding the difference between the requirements for a person acting as a party’s representative (like filing the case) and the qualifications of a person testifying as a witness based on their own knowledge. The opposing counsel’s argument appears to confuse these distinct concepts. Generally, a witness testifies based on what they can perceive and communicate, not based on a formal authorization from the party presenting them. Let’s delve into the specific rules governing this.

Untangling Witness Requirements from Procedural Dismissals

The situation you described touches upon two key areas of our procedural laws: the grounds for dismissing a case due to the plaintiff’s fault, and the rules on who is qualified to be a witness. It’s crucial to keep these separate, as the opposing counsel seems to be conflating them.

First, let’s address the threat of dismissal for failure to prosecute. The Rules of Court are specific about when a case may be dismissed on this ground. It’s not a catch-all reason for any perceived lapse by the plaintiff.

Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.–If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion…”

As you can see, the grounds are specific: (1) failure to appear during evidence presentation, (2) failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, or (3) failure to comply with the Rules or a court order. Presenting a witness who allegedly lacks a specific ‘authorization to testify’ does not fall under any of these grounds. You appeared, you presented your witness (Mang Ben), and presumably, you have been actively pursuing the case without unreasonable delay and have complied with court orders. Therefore, dismissing your case for failure to prosecute based solely on the lack of a formal authorization document for Mang Ben to testify seems legally unfounded.

Now, let’s look at the requirements for being a witness. Does Mang Ben need a formal authorization from you to be considered a valid witness? The Rules focus on the witness’s inherent capacity to observe and communicate, not on any formal empowerment by the party calling them.

Rule 130, Section 20 of the Rules on Evidence states: “Witnesses; their qualifications.–Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.”

This rule is clear. The fundamental qualifications are the ability to perceive (see, hear, smell, touch, taste) relevant events and the ability to communicate those perceptions to the court. Mang Ben, having been your caretaker for 30 years, certainly perceived events related to the possession and use of the land. His testimony about these personal observations makes him a potentially competent witness, provided he can communicate this information.

Furthermore, the Rules explicitly list grounds for disqualification of witnesses. These generally relate to factors like mental incapacity, immaturity, conflicts of interest arising from certain relationships (like lawyer-client, doctor-patient, priest-penitent privilege), or marital privilege.

Philippine jurisprudence emphasizes that the specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses in the Rules of Court generally excludes other grounds for disqualification. It follows the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing excludes others not mentioned). As stated in interpretations of evidence rules: “The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules.”

There is no general rule listed under these disqualifications stating that a witness requires a formal authorization document (like an SPA) from the party presenting them simply to testify about matters of their personal knowledge. An SPA is typically required for agents acting on behalf of a principal in juridical acts (like selling property, entering contracts, filing lawsuits), not for someone merely recounting their own observations in court. Your lawyer represents you in court; Mang Ben is there to provide factual testimony based on his own senses.

The argument of the opposing counsel seems misplaced. It attempts to impose a requirement (formal authorization to testify) that does not exist in procedural law or the rules on evidence for fact witnesses testifying on personal knowledge. Mang Ben’s credibility or the weight of his testimony can be challenged during cross-examination, but his basic qualification to testify under Rule 130, Section 20, or the dismissal of your case under Rule 17, Section 3, should not hinge on the absence of an unnecessary authorization document.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• File a Strong Opposition: Ensure your lawyer files a timely and robust opposition to the motion to dismiss/exclude testimony. Clearly argue why the objection lacks legal basis.
• Cite the Rules: Your opposition should explicitly cite Rule 17, Section 3 (showing none of the grounds for dismissal apply) and Rule 130, Section 20 (showing Mang Ben meets the qualifications of a witness).
• Distinguish Witness vs. Representative: Emphasize the difference between a witness testifying on personal knowledge and an agent requiring an SPA to perform juridical acts for a principal.
• Highlight Personal Knowledge: Stress that Mang Ben is testifying based on his direct, personal perceptions over 30 years, which is precisely what the Rules on Evidence require.
• Prepare Witness for Cross-Examination: While the authorization issue is likely unfounded, ensure Mang Ben is well-prepared for cross-examination focusing on his perception, memory, and communication ability regarding the land’s possession.
• No Basis for Dismissal: Argue firmly that dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under these circumstances would be highly irregular and contrary to the specific provisions of the Rules of Court.
• Consult Your Lawyer Thoroughly: Discuss these points in detail with your lawyer to ensure your position is presented effectively to the court.

It’s important to stand firm on the applicable rules. While judges have discretion, it must be exercised within the bounds of law and procedure. The lack of a formal authorization letter for a fact witness is generally not a valid ground to disqualify them or dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.