Unless he assents thereto, a party to an action cannot be affected
by the admission of a person who does not occupy toward him any
relation of privity, agency or joint interest.
The act, declaration or omission of another is generally irrelevant,
and that in justice a person should not be bound by the acts of mere
The rule is well-settled that a party is not bound by any agreement
of which he has no knowledge and to which he has not given his
consent and that his rights cannot be prejudiced by the declaration,
act or omission of another, except by virtue of a particular relation
This section refers to the first branch of the rule of “Res Inter
Alios Acta Alteri Nocere Non Debet”. It is corollary known as the
second branch of the rule, is found in Section 34 of Rule 130.
Exceptions To This Rule:
1. Those instances where the third person is a partner, agent, joint
owner, joint debtor or has a joint interest with the party
2. Is a co-conspirator
3. Is a privy of a party
Basis of the Exceptions
A third party may be so united in interest with the party-opponent
that the other person’s admissions may be receivable against the
party himself. The term “privy” is the orthodox catchword for the
Res Inter Alios Acta
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act/declaration/omission of another.
(1st branch of the res inter alios acta rule)
Only the admissions of a party-litigant are admissible as
substantive evidence. Those of non-party witnesses may be admitted
for impeachment purposes only.
An admission by a 3rd-party cannot bind a party-litigant because
such 3rd-party admission would be res inter alios acta and
Extra-judicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused
may not be utilized against the latter.
Exception: People vs. Raquel 1996
1. The co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted the confession
by not questioning its truthfulness
2. The accused persons voluntarily and independently executed
identical confessions without collusion and without contradiction
by the others present
3. The accused admitted the facts after being apprised of the
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was
confessed by 1 of the accused and the confession is used only
as a corroborating evidence
5. The confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation by the co-conspirator
6. The confessant testified for his co-defendant
7. The co-conspirator’s extra-judicial confession is corroborated
by other evidence on record.
Exceptions To Res Inter Alios Acta
1. Partner’s/agent’s admission
(Rule 130, Sec.29)
a. The act/declaration must be within the scope of the authority
of the partner/agent.
b. The act/declaration must have been made during the existence
of the partnership/agency.
c. The partnership or agency must be shown by evidence other
than the act or declaration.
This rule applies to the act/declaration of a joint owner,
joint debtor or other person jointly interested with the
party. Statements made after a partnership has been dissolved
do not fall within this exception.
2. Co-conspirator’s admission
(Rule 130, Sec.30)
a. The act/declaration must relate to the conspiracy;
b. It must have been made during the existence of the conspiracy
and not long after the conspiracy had been brought to end.
(People vs. Chaw Yaw Shun 1968)
c. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than such
The existence of the conspiracy may be inferred from the
acts of the accused. (People vs. Belen 1963)
Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged
conspiracy, the extra-judicial confession of an
accused cannot be used against his co-accused as the res
inter aliosrule applies both to extra-judicial confessions
and admissions.(People vs. Alegre 1976)
This rule in Rule 130, Sec. 30 applies only to extra-judicial
statements, not to testimony given on the stand.
(People vs. Serrano 1959)
3. Admission by privies. (Rule 130 Sec.31)
Where one derives title to property from another,
the act/declaration/omission of the latter, while holding the
title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the
Requisites: (People vs. Du)
a. There exists a relation of privity between the party and
Privity in estate may have arisen by succession, acts mortis
causa or acts inter vivos. (Alpuerto vs. Perez Pastor)
b. Admission was made by declarant as predecessor-in-interest
while holding title to property;
c. Admission is in relation to the property.