View full case

HEIRS OF MARGARITA PRODON v. HEIRS OF MAXIMO S. ALVAREZ

FACTS:

The plaintiffs filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages against the defendant, alleging that their parents were the registered owners of a property covered by TCT No. 84797. They claimed that the defendant caused an entry to be made on the title stating that the property had been sold to her with a right to repurchase, despite the non-existence of a deed of sale with such provision. The plaintiffs sought to have the entry cancelled and claimed damages against the defendant. The custodian of the records testified that the copy of the deed of sale could not be found in the files of the Register of Deeds. The RTC ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the execution and existence of the deed of sale had been sufficiently established by reliable evidence. The plaintiffs appealed to the CA, which reversed the RTC's ruling. The CA held that the Best Evidence Rule did not apply, allowing the defendant to present evidence other than the original document.

The case involves a disputed deed of sale with right to repurchase of a property. The original copy of the deed was allegedly lost, and the plaintiffs argued that its existence had not been duly proven. The plaintiffs also asserted that their father, Maximo Alvarez, was physically incapacitated at the time. The plaintiffs further pointed out that the defendants had not taken any action to recover possession of the property or pay real property tax, which cast doubt on their claim of ownership. The plaintiffs also argued that all originals of the deed of sale must be accounted for before resorting to secondary evidence, which the defendants failed to do.

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of a property. The original deed of sale with right to repurchase was allegedly executed by Maximo Alvarez, Sr. in favor of Margarita Prodon, but the original document was lost and only partial copies were accounted for by the petitioners. The court found that there was insufficient effort made by the petitioners to recover the missing copy. The trial court admitted secondary evidence of the deed, but the CA reversed the decision, ruling that Margarita Prodon failed to prove the existence of the original deed and its loss. The heirs of Margarita Prodon filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA. The heirs then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues on the admission of secondary evidence and the physical capability of Maximo Alvarez, Sr. to execute the deed. The Supreme Court held that the appeal had no merit and affirmed the decision of the CA.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the pre-requisites for the admission of secondary evidence had been complied with;

  2. Whether the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had been physically incapable of personally executing the deed of sale with right to repurchase; and

  3. Whether Prodon's claim of ownership was already barred by laches.

  4. Whether or not the Best Evidence Rule applies in this case.

  5. Whether or not Prodon established the existence and due execution of the deed of sale with right to repurchase.

  6. Whether Prodon was able to show the loss or unavailability of the original deed of sale with right to repurchase, justifying the presentation of secondary evidence.

  7. Whether the testimony of Camilon regarding the execution of the deed of sale with right to repurchase was credible despite the medical records showing the serious ailments of Maximo Alvarez, Sr. during that time.

  8. Whether the deed of sale with right to repurchase existed.

  9. Whether the registration of the deed is conclusive proof of its authenticity and due execution.

  10. Whether the respondents' remaining in peaceful possession of the property is evidence that the deed of sale with right to repurchase did not exist.

RULING:

  1. The appeal has no merit.

  2. The Best Evidence Rule was not applicable in this case. The misapplication of the Best Evidence Rule by the lower courts diverted the attention from the decisive issue in the action for quieting of title. The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue. In this case, where the action is for the removal of any cloud or doubt on the title to real property, the issue does not relate to the terms of the writing. Therefore, secondary evidence may be admitted without accounting for the original.

  3. The Best Evidence Rule does not apply in this case. The terms of the deed of sale with right to repurchase were not the issue. The action for quieting of title is not based on the terms or contents of the deed but on its invalidity or inoperativeness. Therefore, the court should have overruled the objection to the question regarding the execution of the deed and should not have applied the Best Evidence Rule.

  4. Prodon did not preponderantly establish the existence and due execution of the deed of sale with right to repurchase. Although it was not necessary to prove the loss or unavailability of the original deed, good trial tactics required Prodon to explain the loss of the original to establish the genuineness and due execution of the deed. Prodon's inability to produce the original gave rise to the need for her to prove its existence and due execution by other means, which could only be secondary evidence. However, Prodon failed to establish the existence and due execution of the deed.

  5. Prodon failed to adduce sufficient proof to show the loss or explain the unavailability of the original deed of sale with right to repurchase. The testimony of Camilon that he handed the original to Prodon's lawyer was not enough, as there was no showing of any effort to locate the original from the lawyer's belongings or to secure a duplicate original from the notary public. Thus, secondary evidence could not be presented.

  6. The testimony of Camilon regarding the execution of the deed of sale with right to repurchase was not credible. The medical records showed that Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had been suffering from serious ailments and had been in and out of the hospital during the period when the deed was supposedly executed. The high improbability of him traveling from Manila to Meycauayan, Bulacan to negotiate and consummate the sale of the property was confirmed by his son's testimony. Therefore, Prodon's allegation regarding the execution of the deed could not be believed.

  7. The respondents have proven that the deed of sale with right to repurchase executed by the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. did not exist in fact.

  8. The registration of the deed is not conclusive proof of its authenticity or due execution.

  9. The respondents' remaining in peaceful possession of the property further proves the non-existence of the deed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Best Evidence Rule - The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving the terms of a written document, the original of the document must be produced in court, unless certain exceptions apply. The rule aims to ensure the exact contents of a writing are brought before the court and acts as an insurance against fraud and misleading inferences. However, the rule applies only when the terms of the writing are in issue, and secondary evidence may be admitted when the evidence concerns external facts without reference to the terms of the writing.

  • Action for Quieting of Title - A common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud or doubt on the title to real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title. The purpose of this action is to determine the respective rights of the parties involved and to remove any doubt over the property's ownership.

  • For an action to quiet title to prosper, the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action, and the deed or claim casting cloud on the title must be shown to be invalid or inoperative.

  • The action for quieting of title may be based on the fact that a deed is invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable.

  • The Best Evidence Rule applies when the terms or contents of a writing are material to an action for quieting of title, depending on the ground alleged by the plaintiff.

  • Secondary evidence may be admitted to prove the existence and due execution of a document if the original is lost or unavailable, but it is still necessary to establish and explain the loss of the original.

  • To justify the presentation of secondary evidence, there must be sufficient proof of the loss or unavailability of the original document.

  • The credibility of a witness's testimony may be undermined by medical records or other evidence that contradicts the witness's claims.

  • Registration of an instrument is simply a ministerial act to give notice and does not establish the authenticity or due execution of the instrument.

  • The registration of an instrument does not require that it be valid.

  • The possession of a property by a party in a sale with right to repurchase can be evidence that the deed did not exist.