This case discusses the admissibility of secondary evidence when original documents are lost or destroyed. The Supreme Court ruled that:
1) Secondary evidence is admissible if the proponent can establish the former existence and execution of the original document.
2) To prove a lost document, the proponent must show the document's existence, execution, and loss, although not necessarily in that order.
3) In this case, the petitioners sufficiently proved the existence and execution of the lost deed, but failed to account for all original copies, so the secondary evidence (Xerox copy) was inadmissible.
This case discusses the admissibility of secondary evidence when original documents are lost or destroyed. The Supreme Court ruled that:
1) Secondary evidence is admissible if the proponent can establish the former existence and execution of the original document.
2) To prove a lost document, the proponent must show the document's existence, execution, and loss, although not necessarily in that order.
3) In this case, the petitioners sufficiently proved the existence and execution of the lost deed, but failed to account for all original copies, so the secondary evidence (Xerox copy) was inadmissible.
This case discusses the admissibility of secondary evidence when original documents are lost or destroyed. The Supreme Court ruled that:
1) Secondary evidence is admissible if the proponent can establish the former existence and execution of the original document.
2) To prove a lost document, the proponent must show the document's existence, execution, and loss, although not necessarily in that order.
3) In this case, the petitioners sufficiently proved the existence and execution of the lost deed, but failed to account for all original copies, so the secondary evidence (Xerox copy) was inadmissible.
This case discusses the admissibility of secondary evidence when original documents are lost or destroyed. The Supreme Court ruled that:
1) Secondary evidence is admissible if the proponent can establish the former existence and execution of the original document.
2) To prove a lost document, the proponent must show the document's existence, execution, and loss, although not necessarily in that order.
3) In this case, the petitioners sufficiently proved the existence and execution of the lost deed, but failed to account for all original copies, so the secondary evidence (Xerox copy) was inadmissible.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
De Vera vs.
Aguilar 218 SCRA 602 (1983)
FACTS:
Petitioners (all surnamed De Vera) and respondent Leona
(married to Mariano Aguilar)are the children and heirs of the late Marcosa Bernabe. Marcosa Bernabe owned the disputed parcel of land. Such property was mortgaged by petitioners to Bordador. When the mortgage had matured, the respondents Spouses Aguilar redeemed the property, and in turn Bernabe soldthe same to them as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale. Then, an OCT was issued in their name. Three years later, the petitioners wrote to the respondents claiming that as children of Bernabe, they were co-owners of the property and demanded partition thereof. The petitioners also claimed that the respondents had resold the property to Bernabe. Petitioners De Verafi l e d a suit for r e c o n ve y an c e of the lot. The TC rendered i t s d e c i s i o n o r d e r i n g t h e reconveyance of the lot. In ruling for the petitioners de Vera, the TC admitted, over the objection of the respondents Aguilar, a Xerox copy of an alleged deed of sale executed by respondents in favor of Bernabe. On ap p e al to the C A , t h e d e c i s i o n w as r e ve r s e d . T h e C A fo u n d t h at t h e l o s s or destruction of the original deed of sale has not been duly proven by petitioners, so secondary evidence (Xerox copy of deed of sale) is inadmissible. Hence, this petition for review oncertiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether secondary evidence is admissible when the original
documents are lost
RULING:
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. The sufficiency of proof for the admission of an alleged lost deed lies within the judicial discretion of the TC.In the case at bar, the TC merely ruled in the existence and dye execution of the alleged deed of sale. The existence of the alleged deed was proved by the Xerox copy. In execution of a document, the same may be accomplished by the person(s) who executed it; by the person before whom its execution was acknowledged; or by any person who was present and saw it executed or who, after its execution saw it and recognized the signatures, or by a person to whom the parties had confessed the execution thereof. The petitioners have sufficiently established the due execution of the alleged deed through the testimony of the notary public.The loss or destruction of the deed may be proved 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 place(s) where 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 must be accounted for before using copies. For since all the duplicates 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 case at bar,the notary public testified that the alleged deed of sale has about 4 or 5 original copies. Hence,all these must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be given of any one. These petitioners failed to do.
