Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 299 views

    de Vera vs. Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    lou ann
    The heirs of Marcosa Bernabe claimed co-ownership of a parcel of land that was originally owned by Marcosa but was later sold to respondents Mariano and Leona Aguilar. [1] Petitioners attempted to introduce a xeroxed copy of a deed showing respondents resold the land to Marcosa Bernabe. [2] However, the Supreme Court ruled the xeroxed copy inadmissible as secondary evidence because petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that the original document was lost. [3] Petitioners did not investigate where the original may have been kept or account for all original copies, as required before secondary evidence can be admitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    de Vera vs. Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    lou ann
    299 views2 pages
    The heirs of Marcosa Bernabe claimed co-ownership of a parcel of land that was originally owned by Marcosa but was later sold to respondents Mariano and Leona Aguilar. [1] Petitioners attempted to introduce a xeroxed copy of a deed showing respondents resold the land to Marcosa Bernabe. [2] However, the Supreme Court ruled the xeroxed copy inadmissible as secondary evidence because petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that the original document was lost. [3] Petitioners did not investigate where the original may have been kept or account for all original copies, as required before secondary evidence can be admitted.

    Original Description:

    24. de Vera vs. Aguilar

    Original Title

    24. de Vera vs. Aguilar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The heirs of Marcosa Bernabe claimed co-ownership of a parcel of land that was originally owned by Marcosa but was later sold to respondents Mariano and Leona Aguilar. [1] Petitioners attempted to introduce a xeroxed copy of a deed showing respondents resold the land to Marcosa Bernabe. [2] However, the Supreme Court ruled the xeroxed copy inadmissible as secondary evidence because petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that the original document was lost. [3] Petitioners did not investigate where the original may have been kept or account for all original copies, as required before secondary evidence can be admitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    299 views2 pages

    de Vera vs. Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    lou ann
    The heirs of Marcosa Bernabe claimed co-ownership of a parcel of land that was originally owned by Marcosa but was later sold to respondents Mariano and Leona Aguilar. [1] Petitioners attempted to introduce a xeroxed copy of a deed showing respondents resold the land to Marcosa Bernabe. [2] However, the Supreme Court ruled the xeroxed copy inadmissible as secondary evidence because petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that the original document was lost. [3] Petitioners did not investigate where the original may have been kept or account for all original copies, as required before secondary evidence can be admitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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. G.R. No. 83377
    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.
    G.R. No. 83377
    February 9, 1993

    Facts:

    Marcosa Bernabe owned a parcel of land in Bulacan. His children are Basilio, Luis,
    Felipe, Eustaquia, Maria ( Petitioners), and Leona-married to Mariano
    Aguilar(Respondents)

    Basilio and Felipe mortgaged the parcel of land to Atty. Bordador.

    When the mortgage matured, spouses Maria and Mariano Aguilar redeemed the
    property and in turn Marcosa Bernabe sold the same to them as evidenced by a deed of
    absolute sale and was registered at the Registry of Deeds in Bulacan. Since then, the
    spouses paid the taxes of the land.

    Marcosa Bernabe died.

    On 1980, petitioners demanded to respondents that as children of Marcosa Bernabe,


    they were co-owners of the property and demanded the partition thereof. They claimed
    that the respondents had resold the property to their father Bernabe.

    Petitioners filed a case of Reconveyance against respondent spouses.

    The evidence presented by the plaintiff are the following:

    • Exhibit A- A xerox copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the respondents


    selling, transferring, and conveying the parcel of land in favor of Marcos Bernabe.
    • Testimony of the notary public before whom it was acknowledged
    • Testimony of Luis who was present during its execution
    • Testimony of the representatives of the offices of the National Archives and the
    Provincial Assessor of Bulacan regarding the loss of the original document.
    Issue:

    Whether petitioners have satisfactorily proven the loss of the original deed of sale so as to allow the presentation of the secondary
    evidence (xeroxed copy).

    Ruling:

    No. Although the petitioners established the existence of the alleged document,
    however it failed to establish the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss or
    destruction of the same.

    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 although this order may be changed if necessary in
    the discretion of the court.

    Loss may be shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss, or by anyone who had
    made, in the judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the place or places where
    the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose
    custody the document lost was, and has been unable to find it; or who has made any
    other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is indeed
    lost.

    However, all duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies. For,
    since all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing itself to be proved, no
    excuse for non-production of the writing itself can be regarded as established until it
    appears that all of its parts are unavailable.

    In the instance case petitioner Luis even claimed during the trial that an original of the
    document existed and was submitted to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Malolos
    for registration. The appellees, therefore, should have asked the office to produce it in
    court and if it could not be produced for one reason or another should have called the
    Register of Deeds or his representative to explain why. That they failed to do. The loss
    or destruction of the original of the document in question has not, therefore, been
    established. Hence, secondary evidence of it is inadmissible.

    Hence, all originals must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be given of
    anyone. This petitioners failed to do. Records show that petitioners merely accounted
    for three out of four or five original copies.

    You might also like