Heirs of Prodon vs. Heirs of Alvarez

Facts:

The respondents, the Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave (plaintiffs below), filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, Manila (Civil Case No. 96-78481) against Margarita Prodon (defendant below; now represented by her heirs) and the Register of Deeds of Manila. They alleged that their parents were the registered owners of the parcel covered by TCT No. 84797, that the registered title contained an entry indicating a "Sale w/ Right to Repurchase" in favor of Prodon, and that no such deed existed; they prayed for cancellation of the annotation (Entry No. 3816/T-84797) as a cloud on their title and for damages.

Prodon answered that on September 9, 1975 the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. executed a deed of sale with right to repurchase in her favor, that it was registered with the Register of Deeds, and that the six-month repurchase period expired without repurchase, making her the absolute owner. During trial the custodian of records of the Register of Deeds testified that the copy of the deed could not be found in the Register's files.

On November 5, 1997, the RTC dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and found that the deed's execution and existence had been satisfactorily established by secondary evidence (testimony of Prodon and Jose Camilon, the Notarial Register of Notary Public Eliseo Razon, and the Primary Entry Book of the Register of Deeds), and that the original had been lost despite efforts to produce it.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 18, 2005 the CA, in a decision authored by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., reversed the RTC, held that the prerequisites for admission of secondary evidence had not been satisfied, and ordered cancellation of Entry No. 3816/T-84797, reasoning also that medical records and other indicia cast grave doubt on Alvarez's capacity to execute the deed and that the alleged owner's subsequent conduct (no transfer of title, no tax payments, no attempt to assert possession) weighed against the deed's existence.

The heirs of Prodon moved for substitution and for reconsideration; substitution was allowed but the CA denied reconsideration. The heirs of Prodo...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the petitioners prove the prerequisites for the admission of secondary evidence of the deed of sale with right to repurchase?
• Did the evidence show that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. was physically incapable of executing the deed on September 9, 1975?
• Is the petitioners' claim of owne...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)