G.R. No. 83377 - De Vera vs. Aguilar

Petitioners Basilio, Luis, Felipe, Eustaquia, and Maria de Vera are heirs of the late Marcosa Bernabe, deceased on May 10, 1960.
Respondent Leona Aguilar, married to Mariano Aguilar, is likewise a child and heir of Marcosa Bernabe.
Marcosa Bernabe owned a parcel of land located in Camalig, Meycauayan, Bulacan, consisting of 4,195 square meters, identified as Cadastral Lot No. 3621, Cad. 337, Case No. 4, Meycauayan Cadastre.

The disputed property was mortgaged by Basilio and Felipe de Vera to Atty. Leonardo Bordador.
Respondents Mariano and Leona Aguilar redeemed the property from Bordador when the mortgage matured.
Subsequently, Marcosa Bernabe sold the property to the respondents, as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale dated February 11, 1956.
The deed was registered on February 13, 1956, leading to tax declaration cancellation in Marcosa's name and issuance in Aguilars' names.
Since then, respondents have been paying taxes on the land.
On July 20, 1977, Mariano Aguilar was issued a free patent for the land, prompting issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. P-1356 (M).

On September 1, 1980, petitioners wrote the respondents claiming co-ownership and demanded partition under threat of perjury and falsification charges.
Petitioners alleged respondents resold the property back to Marcosa Bernabe on April 28, 1959.
Respondents denied the resale claim on September 27, 1980, asserting sole ownership.
Petitioners thereafter filed a falsification case against the respondents.

The falsification charge was recommended dismissed by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Arsenio N. Mercado on March 31, 1981, for lack of prima facie case.
On March 26, 1981, petitioners filed a suit for reconveyance of the property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-1356 (M).
On July 31, 1985, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment ordering respondents to reconvey the property, pay litigation expenses, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

The trial court admitted, over respondents’ objection, Exhibit A—a xerox copy of a deed of sale dated April 28, 1959, purporting the respondents sold the property back to Marcosa Bernabe for ₱1,500.00.
Petitioners testified to the execution and acknowledged loss of the original deed, presenting testimony from a notary public and witnesses, as well as representatives from the National Archives and Provincial Assessor offices.

The respondents never sold the property back to Marcosa Bernabe.
Petitioners failed to produce the original deed, meaning the xerox copy (secondary evidence) was inadmissible.

Petitioners contended the notary public’s and witnesses’ testimonies established the document’s existence and loss.
On November 27, 1987, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding petitioners failed to prove loss or destruction of the original deed and all duplicates, rendering secondary evidence inadmissible.

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court to allow admission of the xeroxed copy as evidence.
The main issue: whether petitioners sufficiently proved the loss of the original deed of sale to admit the xeroxed copy under the rules on secondary evidence.

Whether or not the petitioners satisfactorily proved the loss or destruction of the original deed of sale dated April 28, 1959, to justify the admission of the xeroxed copy as secondary evidence.
Whether the failure to produce all original copies or duplicates of the alleged deed bars the admission of secondary evidence.
Whether the trial court committed reversible error in admitting the xeroxed copy in the absence of proof of loss of all originals.