G.R. No. L-2308

FACTS:
Rosario Darwin Araujo inherited property, including the Hacienda Pangpang, from her mother. She married Jose Araujo y Celis, son of the defendant Gregoria Celis. Rosario died in 1888 without descendants or ascendants. The plaintiffs, claiming to be her nearest collateral relatives, sought to inherit her estate, alleging the property was in the defendant’s possession after the death of Jose Araujo in 1889. The defendant asserted that Rosario executed a valid will bequeathing all her property to her husband Jose, and that she (the defendant), as Jose’s heir, rightfully acquired the property upon his intestate death. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed, contesting the admission of secondary evidence regarding the alleged lost will.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in admitting secondary parol evidence to prove the contents of Rosario Darwin Araujo’s alleged will, given the insufficiency of the proof of its loss.

RULING:
Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The defendant failed to sufficiently establish the loss of the original will as required under Section 321 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The testimony of the witnesses was inadequate and unconvincing: it did not clearly prove the will was duly probated, suggested the will was signed by only two witnesses (which would have been invalid under the then-governing law), and failed to credibly show that the alleged copy of the will was among the court records purportedly burned by insurgents. Furthermore, notarial protocols were typically kept in the notary’s residence, not the courthouse, casting further doubt on the claim of destruction. Consequently, the prerequisite for introducing secondary evidence was not met, and such evidence was improperly admitted.