G.R. No. 170604 - Heirs of Prodon vs. Heirs of Alvarez

Parties and Claim
Respondents (Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez, Sr. and Valentina Clave) are registered owners of a parcel under TCT No. 84797. They filed for quieting of title and damages against Margarita Prodon, alleging a cloud on their title.
The cloud consisted of a dorsal annotation on TCT No. 84797 recording a “Sale w/ Right to Repurchase” in favor of Prodon, but respondents claimed no such deed ever existed.

Defendant’s Position and RTC Findings
Prodon answered that on September 9, 1975 the late Maximo S. Alvarez, Sr. executed a valid deed of sale with right to repurchase; she registered it on September 10, 1975; the six-month repurchase period lapsed; she became absolute owner.
At trial the original deed could not be found. The RTC admitted secondary evidence (testimony of Prodon and Jose Camilon; Notarial Register of Notary Razon; Primary Entry Book of the Register of Deeds) under Rule 130, § 5, to prove existence, due execution, and loss of the original. It dismissed the respondents’ complaint for quieting of title.

Appellate Proceedings
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found: (a) Alvarez was hospitalized and incapacitated in late August–September 1975, making his execution of the deed improbable; (b) Prodon failed to prove loss of all originals; (c) she never took possession, paid realty taxes, or transferred the title in her name—acts expected of a true owner. The CA reversed the RTC and ordered cancellation of the annotation.
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, ruling that although the Best Evidence Rule was misapplied by both lower courts, Prodon still failed to prove by preponderance of evidence the existence and execution of the deed.

Whether Prodon complied with the prerequisites for admitting secondary evidence under the Best Evidence Rule.
Whether the late Maximo S. Alvarez, Sr. was physically incapable of executing the deed on September 9, 1975.
Whether Prodon’s claim of ownership is barred by laches.