GR L 919; (November, 1946) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-919; November 28, 1946
ELENA GONZALES, petitioner, vs. BONIFACIO YSIP, Judge of First Instance of Bulacan, and ADELA VELASQUEZ, respondents.
FACTS
The records of Civil Case No. 118 (Elena Gonzales vs. Adela Velasquez) in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan were lost prior to the liberation of the Philippines. The petitioner’s attorney filed a petition on April 27, 1946, seeking to reconstitute the case by admitting specified documents: the complaint, answer, motion for postponement, minutes of a session, testimony of the plaintiff and witnesses, and a decision. The respondent Adela Velasquez’s attorney opposed the admission of the minutes, testimony, and decision, alleging that the proceedings they evidenced were illegal because the deputy clerk who received the evidence was not authorized, and that no notice of the trial or decision was received. Respondent Judge Bonifacio Ysip, in an order dated August 2, 1946, rejected the objected documents and ordered the parties to present their evidence anew.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the documents presented for reconstitution based on objections to their validity or legality, rather than their authenticity.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. It ruled that the sole purpose of reconstitution is to restore the case record to its status quo. In reconstitution proceedings, the court and parties should only determine whether the presented documents are authentic and were part of the original record. The respondent’s objections went to the validity or binding effect of the proceedings (e.g., lack of authority, lack of notice), not the authenticity of the documents themselves. The authenticity of the documents was not seriously impugned, as they were certified under oath by the petitioner’s attorney and the decision was further certified by the deputy clerk. Under Act No. 3110 , the court was bound to admit them for reconstitution. Questions regarding the validity of the proceedings evidenced by the reconstituted documents are separate matters that a party may raise in the proper manner under the Rules of Court after reconstitution is completed. The order of August 2, 1946, was set aside. The respondent Judge was ordered to admit the specified documents and thereafter declare Civil Case No. 118 duly reconstituted. Costs were imposed on respondent Adela Velasquez.