Boston Bank v. Manalo, G.R. 158149, 9 February 2006
Doctrine: Under Section 34, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, evidence that one did a certain thing at one time
is not admissible to prove that he did the same or similar thing at another time, although such evidence may be received
to prove habit, usage, pattern of conduct or the intent of the parties. However, even habit, usage, and pattern must be
sufficiently proved as a fact.
Facts: Xavierville Estate, Inc. (XEI) was the owner of parcels of land in Quezon City. XEI caused the subdivision of the
property into residential lots, which was then offered for sale to individual lot buyer. XEI President Ramos contracted
the services of Engr. Carlos Manalo, Jr. who was in business of drilling deep water wells and installing pumps. Manalo,
Jr. proposed to purchase a lot in the subdivision and offered as part of the downpayment what Ramos owed him.
However, they did not pay the balance of the downpayment on because Ramos failed to prepare a contract of
conditional sale and transmit the same to Manalo for their signature. Boston Bank of the Philippines acquired XEI. They
now go to court for unlawful detainer. Meanwhile, Manalo filed a complaint for specific performance (i.e., execution and
delivery of a Deed of Absolute Sale). Boston Bank insists that a contract has been perfected and that other buyers
(similar acts) all paid at an instalment of 120 months. RTC ordered the conveyance of the Deed of Absolute Sale after
payment. CA affirmed.
Issue: Whether such similar acts may be received as evidence to prove their payment terms.
Ruling: NO. Under Section 34, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, evidence that one did a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did the same or similar thing at another time, although such evidence may be
received to prove habit, usage, pattern of conduct or the intent of the parties.
Similar acts as evidence. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may
be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom
or usage, and the like.
However, respondents failed to allege and prove, in the trial court, that, as a matter of business usage, habit or pattern
of conduct, XEI granted all lot buyers the right to pay the balance of the purchase price in installments of 120 months
of fixed amounts with pre-computed interests, and that XEI and the respondents had intended to adopt such terms of
payment relative to the sale of the two lots in question. Habit, custom, usage or pattern of conduct must be proved like
any other facts. Courts must contend with the caveat that, before they admit evidence of usage, of habit or pattern of
conduct, the offering party must establish the degree of specificity and frequency of uniform response that ensures
more than a mere tendency to act in a given manner but rather, conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. The offering
party must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence of habit. The examples offered
in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must be numerous enough to base on inference of systematic conduct.
Mere similarity of contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of
prejudice and confusion. Boston Bank failed to adduce a shred of evidence to prove that they were obliged to pay the
P278,448.00 monthly, semi-annually or annually. The allegation that the payment of the P278,448.00 was to be paid
in installments is, thus, vague and indefinite. Case law is that, for a contract to be enforceable, its terms must be certain
and explicit, not vague or indefinite.