Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29575)
Facts:
Director of Lands, and Adriano Carpio, Martin Aguilar and Pedro Aguilar v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Mariano Raymundo, G.R. No. L-29575, April 30, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court.On 16 June 1950, Mariano B. Raymundo filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna an application to register an imperfect or incomplete title over five parcels in Mabitac, Laguna (Lots Nos. 461, 462, 463, 480 and 483), claiming acquisition by adverse and continuous occupation since time immemorial. The application was amended on 21 November 1950.
The application was opposed by the Director of Lands (challenging registerability) and by Adriano Carpio, Martin Aguilar and Pedro Aguilar as to the northern portion of Lot No. 463, each asserting possessory rights and prior homestead applications since 1935. After hearing, the registration court declared Raymundo established title to Lots 461, 462, 480, 483 and the southern portion of Lot 463, while finding the Carpio/Aguilar oppositors entitled to the northern portion (about 72 hectares).
Both Raymundo and the Director of Lands appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its 11 July 1968 decision the Court of Appeals modified the trial court judgment by recognizing Raymundo’s registerable title not only to the previously adjudicated parcels but also to the northern portion of Lot No. 463. The appellate court rested its finding on a Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit E‑1) of August 1936 for 10 hectares and on a purported deed of sale (Exhibit O) dated 18 September 1929 for about 80 hectares — the latter being presented only as an unsigned copy. The Court of Appeals overruled oppositors’ objection to Exhibit O after crediting Raymundo’s testimony that the original had been entrusted to his counsel Judge Mariano C. Melendres and later lost during the war, corroborated by Melendres’ testimony and a receipt (Exhibit O‑1) signed by Mariano Castro acknowledging a P100 down payment.
The Director of Lands and the Carpio/Aguilar oppositors petitioned this Court for review of the Court of Appeals’ ruling insofar a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in admitting and relying on an unsigned copy of a deed (Exhibit O) as secondary evidence to prove a sale of real property without sufficiently proving the due execution and loss of the original, in violation of Section 51, Old Rule 123, Rules of Court?
- Having regard to the evidentiary shortcomings, did Raymundo establish title to the northern portion of Lot No. 463, or does that porti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)