BASILIO
DE VERA, LUIS DE VERA, FELIPE DE VERA, HEIRS OF EUSTAQUIA DE VERA-PAPA
represented by GLICERIA PAPA-FRANCISCO, et al., petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES MARIANO AGUILAR and LEONA V. AGUILAR, respondents.
G.R. No. 83377
February 9, 1993
Facts:
Marcosa Bernabe owned a parcel of land in Bulacan. His children are Basilio, Luis, Felipe, Eustaquia, Maria ( Petitioners), and Leona-married to Mariano Aguilar(Respondents)
Basilio and Felipe mortgaged the parcel of land to Atty. Bordador.
When the mortgage matured, spouses Maria and Mariano Aguilar redeemed the property and in turn Marcosa Bernabe sold the same to them as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale and was registered at the Registry of Deeds in Bulacan. Since then, the spouses paid the taxes of the land.
Marcosa Bernabe died.
On 1980, petitioners demanded to respondents that as children of Marcosa Bernabe, they were co-owners of the property and demanded the partition thereof. They claimed that the respondents had resold the property to their father Bernabe.
Petitioners filed a case of Reconveyance against respondent spouses.
The evidence presented by the plaintiff are the following:
• Exhibit A- A xerox copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the respondents selling, transferring, and conveying the parcel of land in favor of Marcos Bernabe.
• Testimony of the notary public before whom it was acknowledged
• Testimony of Luis who was present during its execution
• Testimony of the representatives of the offices of the National Archives and the Provincial Assessor of Bulacan regarding the loss of the original document.
Issue:
Whether petitioners have satisfactorily proven the loss of the original deed of sale so as to allow the presentation of the secondary evidence (xeroxed copy).
Ruling:
No. Although the petitioners established the existence of the alleged document, however it failed to establish the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss or destruction of the same.
Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the instrument. The correct order of proof is as follows: Existence; execution; loss; contents although this order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court.
Loss may be shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss, or by anyone who had made, in the judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the place or places where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost was, and has been unable to find it; or who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is indeed lost.
However, all duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies. For, since all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing itself to be proved, no excuse for non-production of the writing itself can be regarded as established until it appears that all of its parts are unavailable.
In the instance case petitioner Luis even claimed during the trial that an original of the document existed and was submitted to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Malolos for registration. The appellees, therefore, should have asked the office to produce it in court and if it could not be produced for one reason or another should have called the Register of Deeds or his representative to explain why. That they failed to do. The loss or destruction of the original of the document in question has not, therefore, been established. Hence, secondary evidence of it is inadmissible.
Hence, all originals must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be given of anyone. This petitioners failed to do. Records show that petitioners merely accounted for three out of four or five original copies.
vs.
SPOUSES MARIANO AGUILAR and LEONA V. AGUILAR, respondents.
G.R. No. 83377
February 9, 1993
Facts:
Marcosa Bernabe owned a parcel of land in Bulacan. His children are Basilio, Luis, Felipe, Eustaquia, Maria ( Petitioners), and Leona-married to Mariano Aguilar(Respondents)
Basilio and Felipe mortgaged the parcel of land to Atty. Bordador.
When the mortgage matured, spouses Maria and Mariano Aguilar redeemed the property and in turn Marcosa Bernabe sold the same to them as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale and was registered at the Registry of Deeds in Bulacan. Since then, the spouses paid the taxes of the land.
Marcosa Bernabe died.
On 1980, petitioners demanded to respondents that as children of Marcosa Bernabe, they were co-owners of the property and demanded the partition thereof. They claimed that the respondents had resold the property to their father Bernabe.
Petitioners filed a case of Reconveyance against respondent spouses.
The evidence presented by the plaintiff are the following:
• Exhibit A- A xerox copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the respondents selling, transferring, and conveying the parcel of land in favor of Marcos Bernabe.
• Testimony of the notary public before whom it was acknowledged
• Testimony of Luis who was present during its execution
• Testimony of the representatives of the offices of the National Archives and the Provincial Assessor of Bulacan regarding the loss of the original document.
Issue:
Whether petitioners have satisfactorily proven the loss of the original deed of sale so as to allow the presentation of the secondary evidence (xeroxed copy).
Ruling:
No. Although the petitioners established the existence of the alleged document, however it failed to establish the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss or destruction of the same.
Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the instrument. The correct order of proof is as follows: Existence; execution; loss; contents although this order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court.
Loss may be shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss, or by anyone who had made, in the judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the place or places where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost was, and has been unable to find it; or who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is indeed lost.
However, all duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies. For, since all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing itself to be proved, no excuse for non-production of the writing itself can be regarded as established until it appears that all of its parts are unavailable.
In the instance case petitioner Luis even claimed during the trial that an original of the document existed and was submitted to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Malolos for registration. The appellees, therefore, should have asked the office to produce it in court and if it could not be produced for one reason or another should have called the Register of Deeds or his representative to explain why. That they failed to do. The loss or destruction of the original of the document in question has not, therefore, been established. Hence, secondary evidence of it is inadmissible.
Hence, all originals must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be given of anyone. This petitioners failed to do. Records show that petitioners merely accounted for three out of four or five original copies.
No comments:
Post a Comment