5) De Vera v.

Aguilar 218 SCRA 602

 
Facts:
 
Petitioners (De Veras) and Respondents (Aguilars) are the heirs of the deceased
Marcosa Bernabe (Bernabe). 
 
In her lifetime, Bernabe owned a parcel of land (property). The property was mortgaged
by De Veras to a certain Atty. Bordador. When the mortgage had matured, the Aguilars
redeemed the property from Bordador and in turn Bernabe sold the same to them as
evidenced by a deed of absolute sale dated 1956. 
 
The De Veras wrote to Spouses Aguilar claiming that as children of Bernabe, they were
co-owners of the property and that the Aguilars resold the same to Bernabe. The
Aguilars replied that they were the sole owners of the subject property and denied that
the land was resold to Bernabe. The De Veras filed a suit for reconveyance.

Evidence offered by proponent:

The De Veras presented a photocopy of an alleged deed of sale executed in 1959,
which shows that the Aguilars sold unto Bernabe the property. The TC rendered a
decision ordering the Aguilars to reconvey the property to the De Veras. 
 
The Spouses Aguilar appealed to the CA.

Ground/s relied upon by adverse party:

They further contended that since the De Veras failed to produce the original of the
alleged deed of sale, the same was not the best evidence of the alleged sale hence it
should have been excluded. 
 
The De Veras countered that the existence of the deed of sale executed on 1959 had
been duly established by the testimonies of: (1) the notary public before whom it was
acknowledged; (2) Luis De Vera who was present during its execution; (3)
representatives of the National Archives and the Provincial Assessor. 
 
The CA reversed the TC’s decision finding that the loss or destruction of the original
deed of sale has not been duly proven by the De Veras. Hence, the presentation of the
xeroxed copy of the alleged deed of sale is inadmissible. 
 
Issue: 
WON the De Veras have satisfactorily proven the loss of the original deed of sale so as
to allow the presentation of the photocopy of the same. 

Ruling:
 
NO. Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost
or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent
must establish the former existence of the instrument. The correct order of proof is as
follows: Existence; execution; loss; contents. 
 
ITCAB, only the existence and execution was proved by the De Veras. It failed to look
into the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss or destruction of the original
copies of the alleged deed of sale. 
 
In addition, the notary public who notarized the document testified that the alleged deed
of sale has about 4 or 5 original copies. Hence, all originals must be accounted for
before secondary evidence can be given of any one. Records show that the De Veras
only accounted for 3 of 4 or 5 original copies. 
 
Since the rules provide that all duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before
using copies, no excuse for non-production of the writing itself can be regarded as
established until it appears that all of its parts are unavailable. 
 
Effect of Proposed Amendments:
 
Under the old rules, the secondary evidence is either a copy, recitals of the contents in
some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses. It cannot be offered and
admitted unless the proponent accounts for the loss, destruction and unavailability of
the original. 
 
However, under the new rules regarding duplicate and counterpart, a copy so long as it
is accurately a reproduction of the original is no longer secondary evidence. It can be
presented, admitted and offered in court as if it is an original.