#27 Prodon vs Alvarez
Transcript of #27 Prodon vs Alvarez
-
7/24/2019 #27 Prodon vs Alvarez
1/2
Prodon vs. Alvarez
Facts:
Plaintiffs are the heirs of Maximo Alvarez Sr. while the defendants are the heirs of
Margarita Prodon. The plaintiffs filed a complaint for quieting of title with respect to aparticular land in which they alleged that their parents had been in possession of the land
and the registered owner thereof and they could not locate the owners duplicate copy of
T!T "o. #$%&%' but the original copy of T!T "o. #$%&% on file with the (egister of
)eeds of Manila was intact.
*owever' the original copy contained an entry stating that the property had been sold to
defendant Prodon sub+ect to the right of repurchase, and that the entry had been
maliciously done by Prodon because the deed of sale with right to repurchase covering
the property did not exist.
Prodon on the other hand contended that she had become absolute owner of the property
by reason of the failure of Maximo Alvarez to repurchase such.
The (T! opined that although the deed itself could not be presented as evidence in court
as the custodian of the records of the property attested that the copy of the deed of sale
with right to repurchase could not be found in the files of the (egister of )eeds of
Manila' its contents could nevertheless be proved by secondary evidence.
The (T! concluded that the original copy of the deed of sale with right to repurchase had
been lost' and that earnest efforts had been exerted to produce it before the court. -t ruledin favor of Prodon.
n appeal to !A' the !A concluded differently' in that it held that Prodon had not
established the existence' execution' and loss of the original document as the pre/
requisites for the presentation of secondary evidence. -ts application of the 0est 1vidence
(ule naturally led the !A to rule that secondary evidence should not have been admitted.
Issue:
2" best evidence rule applicable in the present case3
Ruling:
"o. The 0est 1vidence (ule applies only when the terms of a written document are the
sub+ect of the inquiry. -n an action for quieting of title based on the inexistenceof a deed
of sale with right to repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property'
-
7/24/2019 #27 Prodon vs Alvarez
2/2
therefore' the 0est 1vidence (ule does not apply' and the defendant is not precluded from
presenting evidence other than the original document.
The !A and the (T! both misapplied the 0est 1vidence (ule to this case.
The 0est 1vidence (ule applies only when theterms of a writing are in issue. 2hen theevidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts' such as the existence' execution
or delivery of the writing' without reference to its terms' the 0est 1vidence (ule cannot
be invo4ed. -n such a case' secondary evidence may be admitted even without
accounting for the original.