Case Digest (G.R. No. 83377)
Facts:
Basilio de Vera, Luis de Vera, Felipe de Vera, Heirs of Eustaquia de Vera‑Papa represented by Gliceria Papa‑Francisco, et al. v. Spouses Mariano Aguilar and Leona V. Aguilar, G.R. No. 83377, February 09, 1993, Second Division, Supreme Court, Campos, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petitioners (siblings and heirs of the late Marcosa Bernabe) claimed ownership of a 4,195‑square‑meter parcel in Camalig, Meycauayan, Bulacan (Cadastral Lot No. 3621). The parcel had been mortgaged by some of the De Veras to Atty. Leonardo Bordador; the respondents, Mariano and Leona Aguilar, redeemed the mortgage and, according to a deed of absolute sale dated February 11, 1956, Marcosa Bernabe sold the property to the Aguilars. The Aguilars thereafter registered the deed with the Bulacan Registry of Deeds on February 13, 1956, paid taxes, and a free patent issued to Mariano Aguilar on July 20, 1977 (OCT No. P‑1356 (M)).
On September 1, 1980 the petitioners asserted co‑ownership as heirs of Marcosa and demanded partition, alleging the Aguilars had resold the property to Marcosa by a deed dated April 28, 1959; respondents denied this. A criminal charge for falsification was filed but recommended dismissed by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal for lack of prima facie evidence. On March 26, 1981 the petitioners filed a civil action for reconveyance in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos, Bulacan, Branch XIV.
The RTC (Branch XIV, Malolos, Bulacan; decision penned by Judge Felipe N. Villajuan, Jr.) rendered judgment on July 31, 1985 ordering the defendants to reconvey the property to the plaintiffs, and awarding litigation expenses, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court admitted over objection Exhibit A, a xerox copy of an alleged deed of sale dated April 28, 1959, and found its execution proven by testimony (including the notary who acknowledged it and an attesting witness).
The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑GR CV No. 07448). The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated November 27, 1987, reversed the RTC, holding that the petitioners failed to prove the loss or destruction (and the unavailability...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioners satisfactorily prove the loss, destruction or unavailability of the original deed of sale and all duplicate originals so as to admit the xeroxed copy as secondary evidence under Rule 130, Sec. 4 (now Sec. 5)?
- If the xeroxed copy is inadmissible, should the RTC’s judgment ordering ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)