G.R. No. 170604; September 2, 2013
HEIRS OF MARGARITA PRODON, PETITIONERS, vs. HEIRS OF MAXIMO S. ALVAREZ AND VALENTINA CLAVE, REPRESENTED BY REV. MAXIMO ALVAREZ, JR., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents, heirs of the registered owners of a parcel of land, filed an action for quieting of title against petitioner Margarita Prodon. They alleged that an annotation of a “Sale with Right to Repurchase” in favor of Prodon on the title was spurious, as the underlying deed did not exist, thereby casting a cloud on their ownership. They asserted continuous possession and payment of taxes. Prodon, in her defense, claimed the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. validly executed the deed on September 9, 1975, and registered it, and that the property was not repurchased within the stipulated period, making her the absolute owner.
During trial, the original deed could not be produced. The Register of Deeds’ custodian testified the document was missing from their files. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding the deed’s execution and existence were sufficiently proven by secondary evidence, including Prodon’s testimony, a notarial register entry, and the Register of Deeds’ primary entry book. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, ruling the Best Evidence Rule barred Prodon from proving the contents of the lost deed without first proving its loss in accordance with the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the Best Evidence Rule to bar the presentation of secondary evidence to prove the existence and due execution of the alleged deed of sale with right to repurchase.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the RTC decision. The Court clarified that the Best Evidence Rule applies only when the contents of a writing are the subject of inquiry. In this action for quieting of title, the core issue was the existence of the deed, not its specific terms. The respondents’ cause of action was precisely that the deed was non-existent, making the annotation fraudulent. Therefore, Prodon was not proving the contents of a document but its very existence as a fact. The rule requiring proof of loss before presenting secondary evidence is inapplicable when the document’s existence, rather than its contents, is the fact in dispute.
The Court held that Prodon satisfactorily established the deed’s execution and existence through competent evidence, principally the contemporaneous official entries in the notarial register and the Register of Deeds’ primary entry book, which corroborated her testimony. These entries constituted prima facie evidence of the deed’s execution. The respondents failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this prima facie case. Consequently, the annotation on the title was valid, and the action for quieting of title must fail.