KOH vs.

ONGSIACO
G.R. No. 11106 | 27 January 1917
ENRIQUE LEGARDA KOH, LUCIO ONGISACO,
vs.
plaintiff and appellee defendant and appellant
NATURE: Appeal from CFI-Manila judgment
PONENTE: J. Torres
FACTS:
Plaintiff Koh filed a complaint with the CFI-Manila against defendant Ongsiaco alleging that the
latter unlawfully seized and took possession of the apartment owned by the latter (and leased by
plaintiff). Thereby causing damage to the plaintiff amounting to P3,000.
Copy of the contract between parties were presented as evidence; and it showed that defendant
Ongisaco leased his apartments and bodega to Koh for the fixed and determined period of 1-year,
which was extendible at the will of the parties.
During the trial, Koh admitted that he had no copy of the contract of lease, since he left his copy
with Ongsiaco, which the latter never returned.
This statement was not refuted/contradicted by the defense.
The defendants only witness, his caretaker, testified that he was the one who inserted the words
at the will of both parties, adding them after the document had already been executed and
notarized; and that the plaintiffs copy also bore the same interlineation.
o [NOTE: Such amendment was made without Kohs consent because it was not initialed by the
caretaker and does not appear to be agreed upon by both parties. Hence, the term of the lease
should be 1 year and extendible for another year]
After trial and introduction of evidence, CFI-Manila rendered judgment in favor of Koh.

ISSUE: Whether the benefit of the admission of genuineness and due execution of an actionable
document be waived.
HELD: YES.
RATIO:
The Court held that the plaintiff Koh, after hearing the answer of the defendant, did not in writing
and on oath deny the genuineness and proper insertion of the words "at the will of both parties"
in the contract.
Nevertheless, the defendant, in allowing proof to be presented (as to whether the said words were
inserted before or after the contract was signed by the parties and certified to before a notary public, and as
to whether they were inserted with the knowledge of the plaintiff), consented that the questions should
be submitted to the court and waived his right to claim that the phrase was inserted with the
knowledge and consent of the plaintiff lessee

RELEVANT PROVISION: Sec. 8, Rule 8

Section 8. How to contest such documents. When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies
them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the
adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of
the original instrument is refused.