FACTS: Medical certificate admissible as prima facie evidence of facts therein
The City of Manila sought to recover possession of two lots located in stated if done by a government doctor even if he were not presented the Tondo district. It appears from the case that Lorenzo del Rosario as a witness. acquired the land from Cipriano Roco and then sold it to his brother Jacinto del Rosario, the defendant in this case. However, the City of FACTS: Manila wanted to recover possession of the lots and presented as one This is an appeal filed by the accused, who was found guilty of rape. of its witnesses, Juan Villegas, who testified that the land in question He was the son of the store owner and the victim was a salesgirl was formerly included in the Gran Divisoria, and that all the land employed therein. included in it belonged to the city. This particular testimony is at variance with the testimonies of two other witnesses Wilson and On review, the Supreme Court had considered pieces of recorded Timoteo who testified that the land belonged to the Central evidence such as the written entries in the clinical case record Government (not the city). Villegas’ testimony was based on what he prepared and signed by the admitting physician of the hospital. It had learned from the oldest residents of that section of the city and shows the date of the victim's admission in the hospital, her complaint was introduced by the City of Manila apparently for the purpose of of vaginal bleeding and the diagnosis of "Healing lacerated wide at 2 proving that the city was generally considered the owner of the land o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen". drawing from this fact the presumption of actual ownership. ISSUE: ISSUE: Was the testimony of Villegas admissible as proof of common If the entries in the medical record made by the physician in a reputation, making it an exception against hearsay? government hospital is admissible as the exception to the hearsay rule? RULING: No. Villega's testimony was merely hearsay. It consisted of what he had learned from some of the oldest residents in that section RULING: of the city. His testimony was introduced by the plaintiff apparently for YES. The said entries having been made in official records by a public the purpose of proving that the city was generally considered the officer of the Philippines in the performance of his duty especially owner of the land, drawing from this fact the presumption of actual enjoined by law, which is that of a physician in a government hospital ownership under the Code of Civil Procedure. Such testimony, however, is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. does not constitute the "common reputation" referred to in the section mentioned. "common reputation," as used in that section, is equivalent to universal reputation. The testimony of this witness is not sufficient to establish the presumption referred to.
THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACINTO DEL ROSARIO, Defendant-Appellant. Francisco Rodriguez, For Appellant. Modesto Reyes, For Appellee. Syllabus