Title
Spouses Dioso vs. Spouses Cardeno
Case
G.R. No. 150155
Decision Date
Sep 1, 2004
Petitioners sought right of way over respondents' property based on a disputed document. SC ruled in favor, admitting secondary evidence and enforcing the agreement.
property dispute
dismissal of complaint
specific performance

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150155)

Factual Background and Competing Claims

Lot 248-A, with a total area of 222 square meters, was originally owned by Magno Erana, the father of petitioner Felicisima Erana Dioso, respondent Leonora Erana Cardeno, and their other sisters (Natividad, Julieta, and Encarnacion). After Magno Erana’s death, Lot 248-A was adjudicated in favor of respondent Leonora Erana Cardeno, together with others. Lot 248-A was later partitioned so that the outer portion along F. Gomez St. became the respondents’ property. The respondents built a house thereon in 1972. The interior portion became the property of Encarnacion Erana Javel, one of Leonora Cardeno’s sisters. Encarnacion sold her share to Felicidad Legaspi, who in turn sold it to the petitioners.

The petitioners also built a house on the adjacent land, Lot 248-B, then owned by Frisco Erana, and they used an existing pathway or alley on that lot as an outlet to F. Gomez St. After purchasing Encarnacion’s portion of Lot 248-A, the petitioners wanted to construct a new house on the interior portion. They demanded a right of way or outlet to F. Gomez St., claiming entitlement under the Pinanumpaang Salaysay executed between Leonora Cardeno and Encarnacion Javel on May 29, 1977.

The Pinanumpaang Salaysay stated, in substance, that Encarnacion and Leonora had an arrangement concerning division of Lot 248-A: the front portion was to be given to Leonora, while the rear portion remained with Encarnacion; Leonora, in granting Encarnacion’s arrangement, would provide a “daang tao” (pathway for persons) along the side of the lot so that Leonora could pass toward the rear portion. The petitioners insisted that this document created a right of way in their favor as successors-in-interest of Encarnacion.

When respondents refused, the petitioners filed the RTC complaint for specific performance and/or easement of right of way with damages. The respondents denied the genuineness and due execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, alleging that it was falsified. They further argued that Leonora and Encarnacion could not have been co-owners excluding other siblings as early as 1977, because the other siblings allegedly waived or renounced their shares only on August 27, 1992.

RTC Ruling: Failure to Prove Due Execution and Secondary Evidence Deficiency

After trial, the RTC dismissed the complaint. It ruled that the petitioners’ evidence did not support their claim that Leonora Cardeno and Encarnacion Javel executed the Pinanumpaang Salaysay or entered into any agreement granting Encarnacion—hence the petitioners—a right of way. The RTC noted that the petitioners presented only a photocopy or machine copy of the purported document. It held that the petitioners failed to lay the foundation required for the admission of secondary evidence to prove the contents of the document.

The RTC further reasoned that even if a voluntary easement of right of way existed, the petitioners were required to pay indemnity therefor. As the petitioners refused to pay such indemnity, the RTC concluded that their action to compel respondents to grant the voluntary easement must fail. The RTC dismissed the complaint and ordered the petitioners to pay P30,000 as attorneys’ fees.

Court of Appeals Ruling: Secondary Evidence Inadmissible and No Legal Basis Established

On appeal, the Court of Appeals largely affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the attorneys’ fees for lack of factual and legal justification. The CA held that the best evidence of a document’s contents is the original document. Citing Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, it ruled that in the absence of a clear showing that the original writing had been lost or destroyed or could not be produced, the photocopy had to be disregarded for being unworthy of probative value and inadmissible.

The CA also cited Section 5, Rule 130 and observed that the petitioners failed to establish proof regarding the reason for the unavailability of the original Pinanumpaang Salaysay. The petitioners’ witness, Veneranda Legaspi, testified only that she did not know why she was given only a photocopy by her mother, Felicidad Legaspi, from whom the petitioners acquired the interior portion of Lot 248-A.

Given these evidentiary shortcomings, the CA upheld the RTC finding that the petitioners’ claim of a right of way had no legal basis, because they did not prove the due execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay. It also affirmed the view that, because the petitioners refused to pay indemnity, the respondents could not be compelled to grant the voluntary easement of right of way.

Motion for Reconsideration/New Trial and Denial by the CA

The petitioners moved for reconsideration/new trial before the CA, contending that it erred in adopting the RTC’s factual findings without making its own. They also submitted Tax Declaration No. 51637 for 1992 covering Lot 248-A in the name of respondent Leonora Cardeno. The tax declaration contained an annotation referencing the Pinanumpaang Salaysay and a “pag-talikod” (reversal/withdrawal) to a co-participant’s share as reflected in the records.

The petitioners claimed this tax declaration, together with related materials they submitted later, constituted newly discovered evidence that could alter the outcome. In a supplement, they also submitted a photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, certified by the Municipal Assessor as a faithful reproduction of the original kept by Encarnacion Javel. The Municipal Assessor also certified that the Pinanumpaang Salaysay had been presented in connection with the issuance of respondent Leonora Cardeno’s tax declarations covering Lot 248-A. The petitioners submitted an affidavit of Magtanggol Yldeso, one of the witnesses to the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, attesting to the circumstances of its execution and identifying the signatures.

The CA denied the motion in its resolution dated September 28, 2001. It ruled that these documents were not newly discovered because they already existed at the time of filing of the complaint or, at the latest, before elevation of the case, and due diligence could have secured them.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners assigned error in the denial of their motion for reconsideration/new trial. They argued that the CA should have admitted in evidence the photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay certified by the Municipal Assessor. They insisted that the certification confirmed the existence and due execution of the document and that the photocopy was already part of the trial records. They also argued that the failure to present the tax declaration annotation during trial was excusable negligence of former counsel. They further maintained that they sufficiently established, through secondary evidence, both the existence of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay and the loss or unavailability of the original.

Ruling on Newly Discovered Evidence: No Requisites Satisfied

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s denial of the motion for reconsideration/new trial on newly discovered evidence grounds. It reiterated the requisites for newly discovered evidence as a basis for new trial: that the evidence was discovered after trial; could not have been discovered and produced during trial even with reasonable diligence; and was material, not merely corroborative, cumulative, or impeaching, and was of such weight that if admitted, it would probably change the judgment.

The Supreme Court emphasized that an offering party must show that it exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence before or during trial, yet still failed to secure it. It held that the documents belatedly submitted did not meet the second requisite. Respondent Leonora Cardeno’s 1992 tax declaration already existed long before the petitioners filed their complaint in 1997. The Court noted that a tax declaration is a public document, so the petitioners could have obtained it and presented it during trial. Similarly, the certified copy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay was also already obtainable at the relevant time.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ attempt to excuse the omission by attributing it to the mistake or negligence of former counsel. It held that clients generally remain bound by the errors, negligence, and omissions of their counsel.

Admission of Secondary Evidence: Petitioners Properly Established Its Basis

While the Supreme Court sustained the denial of the motion for reconsideration/new trial, it ruled favorably to the petitioners on the separate evidentiary issue concerning secondary evidence. It acknowledged the general rule under Section 3, Rule 130 that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. However, it reiterated that exceptions exist under Section 5, Rule 130 when the original has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court.

The Court held that secondary evidence may be admitted only upon satisfactory proof of: (1) the execution or existence of the original; (2) the loss, destruction, or non-production in court; and (3) unavailability not due to bad faith on the part of the offeror. It further stressed that proof of due execution and subsequent loss would furnish the foundation for admitting secondary evidence.

The Court found that, although the original Pinanumpaang Salaysay had not been presented during trial, the petitioners had presented a photocopy and testimonial evidence establishing the document’s due execution and the loss or unavailability of the original.

For due execution, it relied on testimony from Magtanggol Yldeso, a witness to the execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, who testified that his signature appeared on the document and that the signatures of Encarnacion Erana and Leonora Erana Cardeno were affixed in his presence, with Tomas Cardeno signing thereafter. He also testified that the document was signed before Ma

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms