G.R. No. 4383
ZACARIAS BAGSA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CRISOSTOMO NAGRAMADA, defendant-appellee.
August 31, 1908

FACTS: Plaintiff Zacarias Bagsa brought an action to recover cocoa lands from his brother-in-law, defendant Crisostomo Nagramada, in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Samar. The CFI dismissed Bagsa’s action and awarded the land to Nagramada.

In 1887, Nagramada borrowed 185 pesos from Bagsa. Bagsa claimed this debt was settled by Nagramada conveying the land to him. Nagramada, however, asserted that he repaid the debt through various installments and by allowing Bagsa to take products from the land for six months.

Bagsa presented a deed dated August 7, 1893, from Nagramada conveying the land, but it contained an indefinite description, rendering it inoperative. Bagsa then attempted to prove a confirmatory deed dated October 14, 1893, which correctly described the property. For this, he offered a notarial certificate dated July 1, 1903, which the CFI rejected. The court noted that by force of Act No. 136 and the Land Registration Act No. 496 (effective January 1, 1903), the old notarial system was abolished, and notaries were no longer public custodians of documents or empowered to issue certified copies.

Bagsa further sought to establish the existence of the confirmatory deed through a certified copy of the record of a previous action in the Justice of the Peace (JP) court between the same parties concerning the same land. The trial court rejected this record, assuming the JP court lacked jurisdiction in that prior case and thus the copy of the deed within it was incompetent.

However, during the trial before the JP court, Nagramada had expressly admitted making the deed but claimed it was a simulated sale intended to render him ineligible for the burdensome office of cabeza de barangay. Bagsa offered this admission as rebuttal evidence to discredit Nagramada. The trial court refused to admit it, ruling that no proper foundation had been laid by previously questioning Nagramada about the alleged admission.

ISSUE: 1. Whether a notarial certificate issued after the abolition of the old notarial system is competent proof of a deed.
2. Whether a certified copy of a court record, though from a court acting without jurisdiction, can be admitted as evidence of admissions made by a party during that proceeding, especially when used for impeachment, and whether proper foundation was laid for such admission.

RULING: 1. On the notarial certificate: The Supreme Court affirmed that the notarial certificate dated July 1, 1903, was rightly rejected. With the passage of Act No. 136 and the Land Registration Act No. 496 (effective January 1, 1903), the old notarial system was abolished, and notaries were no longer authorized to act as public custodians of documents or to issue certified copies thereof. Documents previously in their possession were required to be filed in the general archives.

2. On the admissibility of the JP court record and Nagramada’s admission:
The Court held that sufficient foundation was laid for the contradiction of Nagramada by his admission made before the justice of the peace. The record showed that Nagramada was specifically questioned about whether he had stated in the JP court that he had ordered a document of purchase and sale made for the land, but that it was only a pretended sale.
The Court further ruled that even if the Justice of the Peace court lacked jurisdiction over the original cause, a properly taken and duly certified record of its proceedings constitutes a public record. As such, it may be received as evidence of what transpired during the hearing, including admissions made by the parties. This rule is necessary to ascertain what occurred in courts acting in excess of jurisdiction, even if their actions are not given validity.
* Therefore, the record of the trial in the justice court should have been received to contradict Nagramada’s denials. Had it been received, it would have established a decided preponderance of proof in favor of Bagsa.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court. It ordered Zacarias Bagsa to recover the land from Crisostomo Nagramada, with costs of the First Instance. However, it did not award damages or costs in the Supreme Court due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the land’s products.