GR 83377; (February, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 83377 February 9, 1993
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.
FACTS
Petitioners and respondent Leona Aguilar are the heirs of Marcosa Bernabe, who owned a parcel of land in Meycauayan, Bulacan. During her lifetime, on February 11, 1956, Marcosa Bernabe sold the land to the respondent spouses, who registered the deed, secured a tax declaration in their name, and later obtained a free patent and an Original Certificate of Title. On September 1, 1980, petitioners claimed co-ownership and demanded partition, alleging that the respondents had resold the property to Marcosa Bernabe on April 28, 1959. The respondents denied this. Petitioners filed a suit for reconveyance. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, admitting a xeroxed copy (Exhibit A) of the alleged 1959 deed of resale over the respondents’ objection. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that the petitioners failed to prove the loss or destruction of the original deed of sale and all its duplicate original copies, rendering the secondary evidence inadmissible.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners have satisfactorily proven the loss of the original deed of sale dated April 28, 1959, to allow the presentation of a xeroxed copy as secondary evidence.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Under Section 4, Rule 130 (now Section 5, Rule 130) of the Rules of Court, secondary evidence of a document’s contents is admissible only upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction. The petitioners established the due execution of the alleged 1959 deed through the testimony of the notary public. However, they failed to sufficiently prove the loss or destruction of the original and all duplicate original copies. The notary public testified there were four or five original copies, but petitioners accounted for only three. Testimony indicated one original was submitted to the Register of Deeds, but petitioners did not call the Register of Deeds to explain its non-production. Testimonies from the Provincial Assessor’s Office and the National Archives did not prove the loss of all originals. Since all duplicates must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be admitted, and this was not done, the xeroxed copy was inadmissible.