A.M. No. P-13-3137 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Silongan

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-13-3137)

Petitioner

Heirs of Margarita Prodon (substituted defendants following Prodon’s death).

Respondent

Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave, represented by Rev. Maximo S. Alvarez, Jr. (plaintiffs in the trial court seeking cancellation of the annotation and damages).

Key Dates

Alleged deed of sale with right to repurchase: September 9, 1975.
Registration/annotation on TCT: September 10, 1975.
Original RTC judgment: November 5, 1997 (held deed existed; admitted secondary evidence).
CA decision reversing RTC: August 18, 2005 (ordered cancellation of annotation).
Supreme Court decision affirming CA: September 2, 2013.

Applicable Law and Authorities

1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable by virtue of decision date after 1990).
Rules of Court — Rule 130 (Best Evidence Rule), specifically Section 3 (original document must be produced; exceptions) and Section 5 (secondary evidence).
Civil Code — Article 1403 (Statute of Frauds) referenced as an instance where writing controls.
Jurisprudence cited in the case: De Vera v. Aguilar (218 SCRA 602), Phil-Ville Development v. Bonifacio, Citibank v. Teodoro, and others discussing the Best Evidence Rule, its purpose, and application.

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Respondents (plaintiffs at trial) sought cancellation of the annotation on the title and damages on the ground that the deed of sale with right to repurchase that purportedly created the annotation did not exist; petitioners (defense) asserted the deed existed, had been registered, and that the repurchase period expired without repurchase, making Prodon the absolute owner.

Primary Legal Issue(s)

Whether the Best Evidence Rule applied so as to require production of the original deed or to condition admissibility of secondary evidence on proof of the deed’s existence, execution, and loss.
Whether petitioners proved by preponderance of evidence the existence and due execution of the deed of sale with right to repurchase.
Ancillary: whether laches or failure to act (non-possession, non-payment of taxes, non-transfer of title) undermined petitioners’ ownership claim.

Court’s analysis — scope and purpose of the Best Evidence Rule

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Best Evidence Rule applies only when the contents (terms) of a writing are the subject of inquiry. The rule’s objectives are (1) to ensure exactitude in proving the operative words of a writing, (2) to reduce inaccuracies from copying or oral testimony, (3) to guard against fraud, and (4) to prevent misleading selection of portions of writings. Where the issue is external — existence, execution, or delivery of a writing — the Best Evidence Rule does not bar admission of secondary evidence to prove those external facts; secondary evidence may be admitted without first accounting for the original when the terms are not in issue.

Court’s analysis — misapplication by RTC and CA

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals applied the Best Evidence Rule even though the material issue in the quieting action was whether the deed in fact existed and was executed, not the terms of the deed. The RTC sustained an objection under the Best Evidence Rule during trial and later admitted secondary evidence after finding prerequisites satisfied. The CA likewise applied the Best Evidence Rule but concluded the prerequisites (existence, execution, and loss) were not proven and therefore excluded secondary evidence. The Supreme Court held that because the terms of the deed were not put in issue, the Best Evidence Rule should not have governed admissibility of evidence about the deed’s existence and execution; instead the court should have assessed whether existence and execution were established by preponderance of evidence.

Evidentiary burden and appropriate proof

Although the Best Evidence Rule did not strictly bar secondary evidence on existence and execution, the Court acknowledged that sound trial tactics and fairness usually require the party relying on a missing document (here, petitioners) to explain its non-production and, when the document is foundational to a defense, to exert reasonable efforts to produce originals or duplicates. The standard for proving existence and execution in such a context is by preponderance of evidence, though greater strictness may be expected when the missing document is foundational or when multiple originals (duplicates) exist and must be accounted for.

Supreme Court’s factual findings on existence and execution

The Court concluded petitioners did not preponderantly prove the existence and due execution of the deed. Key factual grounds supporting this conclusion were:

Medical and hospitalization records for Maximo S. Alvarez, Sr. showed serious illnesses and multiple admissions around the alleged execution date (March–October 1975, with hospitalization from August 23–September 3, 1975 and again September 15–October 2, 1975), including paralysis and 90% motor loss on September 12, 1975, making it highly improbable he traveled to Meycauayan to execute the deed on September 9, 1975. Testimony from Alvarez’s son corroborated the serious illness and hospitalizations.
Documentary indicia of registration (annotation on the TCT, primary entry book, and notarial register entry) only established that a document purporting to be a deed was registered; registration is a ministerial act and species of notice and does not conclusively prove authenticity or due execution.
Petitioners failed to adequately explain or demonstrate the whereabouts or loss of the original: the witness Camilon testified an original was given to Atty. Anacleto Lacanilao but offered inadequate proof of diligent effort to retrieve it from the notary’s custody or staff; no sufficient effort was shown to obtain duplicates from the notary who prepared the instrument.
Petitioners’ subsequent conduct undermined the claim of ownership: from 1975 to 1996 petitioners neither sought to recover possession nor paid real property taxes nor transferred the TCT into their name, conduct inconsistent with that expected of legitimate owners and indicative of the claim’s falsity.

On loss and multiplicity of originals

The Court noted authorities requiring that, where a notarized instrument had multiple originals or

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-13-3137)

Case Summary

Nature of the case: Petition for review on certiorari from an appellate decision reversing an RTC judgment in an action for quieting of title and damages.
Principal legal question: Whether the Best Evidence Rule and the prerequisites for admission of secondary evidence applied to, and were satisfied in, an action for quieting of title where the existence and execution of a deed of sale with right to repurchase were disputed.
Outcome at the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing the RTC and ordering cancellation of the annotation (Entry No. 3816/T-84797) on TCT No. 84797; petitioners ordered to pay costs of suit.
Core holding: The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms (contents) of a writing are the subject of inquiry; where the issue is the existence and execution of a writing, secondary evidence of existence/execution may be admissible without first accounting for the original. Nevertheless, on the record the defendant (Prodon) failed to preponderantly prove the actual existence and due execution of the deed of sale with right to repurchase.

Procedural History

Trial court (RTC, Branch 35, Manila): On November 5, 1997 the RTC dismissed the respondents’ action for quieting of title, finding that the deed of sale with right to repurchase had been adequately established by defendant Prodon through secondary evidence.
Court of Appeals (CA): On August 18, 2005 the CA reversed the RTC, finding doubt as to the existence and execution of the deed, and ruling that Prodon failed to satisfy the prerequisites for admission of secondary evidence (existence, execution and loss) and thus ordering cancellation of the annotation on TCT No. 84797.
Supreme Court: Petitioners (heirs of Margarita Prodon) filed petition for review on certiorari and substitution and motion for reconsideration in the CA; CA denied reconsideration and allowed substitution; Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision.

Antecedent Facts and Parties’ Allegations

Plaintiffs/respondents: Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave (represented by Rev. Maximo Alvarez, Jr.) filed complaint for quieting of title and damages against Margarita Prodon.
Respondents’ allegations:
- The late spouses Maximo S. Alvarez, Sr. and Valentina Clave were registered owners of the land under TCT No. 84797 and had continuous possession before and after their deaths (as heirs).
- The duplicate copy of TCT No. 84797 could not be located by respondents, though the original was on file with the Register of Deeds of Manila.
- The original title bore an annotation stating a sale with right to repurchase to Margarita Prodon; respondents alleged the deed of sale with right to repurchase did not exist and the annotation maliciously cast a cloud on their title.
- Prayer: cancellation of the annotation and damages.

Text of the Annotation Sought to be Cancelled

Entry sought cancelled (as recorded on the title):
- "ENTRY NO. 3816/T-84797 a SALE W/ RIGHT TO REPURCHASE IN FAVOR OF: MARGARITA PRODON, SINGLE, FOR THE SUM OF P120,000.00, THE HEREIN REGISTERED OWNER RESERVING FOR HIMSELF THE RIGHTS TO REPURCHASE SAID PROPERTY FOR THE SAME AMOUNT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTH (sic) FROM EXECUTION THEREOF. OTHER CONDITION SET FORTH IN (DOC. NO. 321, PAGE 66, BOOK NO. VIII OF LISEO A. RAZON, NOT.PUB. OF MANILA) DATE OF INSTRUMENT a SEPT. 9, 1975 DATE OF INSCRIPTION a SEPT. 10, 1975, AT 3:42 P.M."

Defendant’s (Prodon’s) Claim and Evidence Presented at Trial

Prodon’s position:
- Asserted that Maximo Alvarez, Sr. executed a deed of sale with right to repurchase on September 9, 1975 in her favor; that it was registered and annotated on the title; that Alvarez was given six months to repurchase but failed to do so, making her absolute owner.
Primary proof offered by Prodon (secondary evidence of deed’s execution/existence, and testimony as to non-production of the original):
- Prodon’s own testimony that she purchased the land on September 9, 1975, that the deed was prepared by Notary Public Eliseo Razon, and that she registered the document on September 10, 1975.
- Notarial Register of Notary Public Eliseo Razon (Exhibit 2) showing entry for No. 321, nature: "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase," with date 9 Sept.
- Primary Entry Book of the Register of Deeds of Manila (Exhibit 4) showing Number of Entry 3816, date/time Sept. 10, 1975, nature "Sale with Right to Repurchase," executed by Maximo S. Alvarez in favor of Margarita Prodon; contract value P120,000; date of document 9-9-75.
- Testimony of Jose Camilon that he handed the original to Atty. Anacleto Lacanilao and could not retrieve it because Atty. Lacanilao was recuperating from illness.

RTC Decision and Reasoning

RTC findings:
- Rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that the deed did not exist; concluded the deed’s execution and existence were adequately shown by Prodon’s testimony and documentary entries in the notarial register and primary entry book.
- Sustained admission of secondary evidence under Section 5, Rule 130 (as RTC applied) upon proof of execution/existence and cause of unavailability of the original without bad faith.
- Rejected plaintiffs’ claim that Maximo Alvarez, Sr. could not have executed the deed due to illness and poor eyesight (no proof provided that Alvarez was bedridden or incapable).
- Believed testimony that the original was lost and that efforts to produce it were made; accepted explanation that the original was given to Atty. Lacanilao who became ill and could not produce it.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Reasoning

CA’s principal rulings and rationale:
- Held that before secondary evidence of contents may be admitted, the document’s existence, execution, and loss must be proven; cited authority that the correct order of proof is existence, execution, loss, contents (though court has discretion to change order).
- Found several circumstances casting doubt on the deed’s very existence:
  - Medical/ hospitalization evidence showed Maximo Alvarez was hospitalized from Aug. 23 to Sept. 3, 1975, suffered paralysis and blindness due to cataract, and was again hospitalized from Sept. 15 until his death in October 1975; the CA found it improbable he could personally execute a deed on Sept. 9, 1975.
  - Prodon never attempted to recover possession, never paid real property taxes, and did not transfer the title from 1975 to 1996 — conduct inconsistent with legitimate ownership and casting doubt on the claim.
  - CA found loss of the deed not satisfactorily established; noted precedent requiring accounting for duplicates (document alleged to have 4–5 original copies) and adequate search for copies (petitioners accounted for only three).
  - The CA concluded trial court erred in admitti