G.R. No.

170604 September 2, 2013 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.
HEIRS OF MARGARITA PRODON, PETITIONERS, Consequently, they prayed that the entry be cancelled, and that Prodon be
vs. adjudged liable for damages.
HEIRS OF MAXIMO S. ALVAREZ AND VALENTINA CLAVE,
REPRESENTED BY REV. MAXIMO ALVAREZ, JR.,RESPONDENTS. The entry sought to be cancelled reads:

DECISION ENTRY NO. 3816/T-84797 – SALE W/ RIGHT TO REPURCHASE IN

FAVOR OF: MARGARITA PRODON, SINGLE, FOR THE SUM OF
BERSAMIN, J.: ₱120,000.00, THE HEREIN REGISTERED OWNER RESERVING FOR
HIMSELF THE RIGHTS TO REPURCHASE SAID PROPERTY FOR THE
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a written document are SAME AMOUNT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTH (sic) FROM
the subject of the inquiry. In an action for quieting of title based on the EXECUTION THEREOF. OTHER CONDITION SET FORTH IN (DOC. NO.
321, PAGE 66, BOOK NO. VIII OF LISEO A. RAZON, NOT.PUB. OF
inexistence of a deed of sale with right to repurchase that purportedly cast a
MANILA)
cloud on the title of a property, therefore, the Best Evidence Rule does not apply,
and the defendant is not precluded from presenting evidence other than the
original document. DATE OF INSTRUMENT – SEPT. 9, 1975

The Case DATE OF INSCRIPTION – SEPT. 10, 1975,

AT 3:42 P.M.4
This appeal seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on
August 18, 2005,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the judgment In her answer,5 Prodon claimed that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had executed
rendered on November 5, 1997 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, on September 9, 1975 the deed of sale with right to repurchase; that the deed
in Manila in Civil Case No. 96-78481 entitled Heirs of Maximo S Alvarez and had been registered with the Register of Deeds and duly annotated on the title;
Valentina Clave, represented by Rev. Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave, that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had been granted six months from September
represented by Rev. Maximo Alvarez, Jr. v. Margarita Prodon and the Register 9, 1975 within which to repurchase the property; and that she had then become
of Deeds of the City of Manila dismissing the respondents’ action for quieting the absolute owner of the property due to its non-repurchase within the given 6-
of title.2 month period.

Antecedents During trial, 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
In their complaint for quieting of title and damages against Margarita Register of Deeds of Manila.
Prodon,3 the respondents averred as the plaintiffs that their parents, the late
spouses Maximo S. Alvarez, Sr. and Valentina Clave, were the registered On November 5, 1997, the RTC rendered judgment,6 finding untenable the
owners of that parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. plaintiffs’ contention that the deed of sale with right to repurchase did not exist.
84797 of the Register of Deeds of Manila; that their parents had been in It opined that although the deed itself could not be presented as evidence in
possession of the property during their lifetime; that upon their parents’ deaths, court, its contents could nevertheless be proved by secondary evidence in
they had continued the possession of the property as heirs, paying the real accordance with Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, upon proof of its
property taxes due thereon; that they could not locate the owner’s duplicate copy execution or existence and of the cause of its unavailability being without bad
of TCT No. 84797, but the original copy of TCT No. 84797 on file with the faith. It found that the defendant had established the execution and existence of
Register of Deeds of Manila was intact; that the original copy contained an entry the deed, to wit:
stating that the property had been sold to defendant Prodon subject to the right

R130 S3. Best Evidence Rule

In the case under consideration, the execution and existence of the disputed deed On appeal, the respondents assigned the following errors, namely:
of sale with right to repurchase accomplished by the late Maximo Alvarez in
favor of defendant Margarita Prodon has been adequately established by reliable A.
and trustworthy evidences (sic). Defendant Prodon swore that on September 9,
1975 she purchased the land covered by TCT No. 84747 (Exhibit 1) from its
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DUE
registered owners Maximo S. Alvarez, Sr. and Valentina Clave (TSN, Aug. 1,
EXECUTION AND EXISTENCE OF THE QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE
1997, pp.5-7); that the deed of sale with right to repurchase was drawn and
WITH RIGHT TO REPURCHASE HAS BEEN DULY PROVED BY THE
prepared by Notary Public Eliseo Razon (Ibid., p. 9); and that on September 10, DEFENDANT.
1975, she registered the document in the Register of Deeds of Manila (Ibid.,
pp.18-19).
B.
The testimony of Margarita Prodon has been confirmed by the Notarial Register
of Notary Public Eliseo Razon dated September 10, 1975 (Exhibit 2), and by the THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE PIECES OF
Primary Entry Book of the Register of Deeds of Manila (Exhibit 4). EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANTS AS PROOFS OF THE
DUE EXECUTION AND EXISTENCE OF THE QUESTIONED DEED OF
SALE WITH RIGHT TO REPURCHASE.
Page 66 of Exhibit 2 discloses, among others, the following entries, to wit: "No.
321; Nature of Instrument: Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase; Name of
Persons: Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Alvarez (ack.); Date and Month: 9 C.
Sept." (Exhibit 2-a).
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
Exhibit 4, on the other hand, also reveals the following data, to wit: ‘Number of QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE WITH RIGHT TO REPURCHASE HAS
Entry: 3816; Month, Day and Year: Sept. 10, 1975; Hour and Minute: 3:42 p.m.; BEEN LOST OR OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED IN COURT
Nature of Contract: Sale with Right to Repurchase; Executed by: Maximo S. WITHOUT THE FAULT OF THE DEFENDANT.
Alvarez; In favor: Margarita Prodon; Date of Document: 9-9-75; Contract value:
120,000.’ (Exhibit 4-a). Under these premises the Court entertains no doubt D.
about the execution and existence of the controverted deed of sale with right to
repurchase.7 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN REJECTING THE
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM THAT THEIR FATHER COULD NOT HAVE
The RTC rejected the plaintiffs’ submission that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. EXECUTED THE QUESTIONED DOCUMENT AT THE TIME OF ITS
could not have executed the deed of sale with right to repurchase because of ALLEGED EXECUTION.8
illness and poor eyesight from cataract. It held that there was no proof that the
illness had rendered him bedridden and immobile; and that his poor eyesight On August 18, 2005, the CA promulgated its assailed decision, reversing the
could be corrected by wearing lenses. RTC, and ruling as follows:

The RTC concluded that the original copy of the deed of sale with right to The case of the Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS) v. Del
repurchase had been lost, and that earnest efforts had been exerted to produce it Rosario in GR No. 146586 (January 26, 2005) is instructive in resolving this
before the court. It believed Jose Camilon’s testimony that he had handed the issue. The said case held:
original to one Atty. Anacleto Lacanilao, but that he could not anymore retrieve
such original from Atty. Lacanilao because the latter had meanwhile suffered "Secondary evidence of the contents of a document refers to evidence other than
from a heart ailment and had been recuperating. the original document itself. A party may introduce secondary evidence of the
contents of a written instrument not only when the original is lost or destroyed,
Ruling of the CA but also when it cannot be produced in court, provided there is no bad faith on
the part of the offeror. However, a party must first satisfactorily explain the loss

R130 S3. Best Evidence Rule

of the best or primary evidence before he can resort to secondary evidence. A in the judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the place or places
party must first present to the court proof of loss or other satisfactory where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person
explanation for non-production of the original instrument. The correct order of in whose custody the document lost was, and has been unable to find it; or who
proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, contents, although the court in its has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the
discretion may change this order if necessary." instrument is indeed lost.

It is clear, therefore, that before secondary evidence as to the contents of a However, all duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using
document may be admitted in evidence, the existence of [the] document must copies. For, since all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing itself
first be proved, likewise, its execution and its subsequent loss. to be proved, no excuse for non-production of the writing itself can be regarded
as established until it appears that all of its parts are unavailable (i.e. lost,
In the present case, the trial court found all three (3) prerequisites ha[ve] been retained by the opponent or by a third person or the like).
established by Margarita Prodon. This Court, however, after going through the
records of the case, believes otherwise. The Court finds that the following In the case at bar, Atty. Emiliano Ibasco, Jr., notary public who notarized the
circumstances put doubt on the very existence of the alleged deed of sale. document testified that the alleged deed of sale has about four or five original
Evidence on record showed that Maximo Alvarez was hospitalized between copies. Hence, all originals must be accounted for before secondary evidence
August 23, 1975 to September 3, 1975 (Exhibit "K"). It was also established by can be given of any one. This[,] petitioners failed to do. Records show that
said Exhibit "L" that Maximo Alvarez suffered from paralysis of half of his body petitioners merely accounted for three out of four or five original copies." (218
and blindness due to cataract. It should further be noted that barely 6 days later, SCRA at 607-608)
on September 15, 1975, Maximo Alvarez was again hospitalized for the last
time because he died on October of 1975 without having left the hospital. This In the case at bar, Jose Camilion’s testimony showed that a copy was given to
lends credence to plaintiffs-appellants’ assertion that their father, Maximo Atty. Anacleto Lacanilao but he could not recover said copy. A perusal of the
Alvarez, was not physically able to personally execute the deed of sale and puts testimony does not convince this Court that Jose Camilion had exerted sufficient
to serious doubt [on] Jose Camilion’s testimony that Maximo Alvarez, with his effort to recover said copy. x x x
wife, went to his residence on September 5, 1975 to sell the property and that
again they met on September 9, 1975 to sign the alleged deed of sale (Exhibits
xxxx
"A" and "1"). The Court also notes that from the sale in 1975 to 1996 when the
case was finally filed, defendant-appellee never tried to recover possession of
the property nor had she shown that she ever paid Real Property Tax thereon. The foregoing testimony does not convince this Court that Jose Camilion had
Additionally, the Transfer Certificate of Title had not been transferred in the exerted sufficient effort to obtain the copy which he said was with Atty.
name of the alleged present owner. These actions put to doubt the validity of the Lacanilao. It should be noted that he never claimed that Atty. Lacanilao was
claim of ownership because their actions are contrary to that expected of already too sick to even try looking for the copy he had. But even assuming this
legitimate owners of property. is to be so, Jose Camilion did not testify that Atty. Lacanilao had no one in his
office to help him find said copy. In fine, this Court believes that the trial court
erred in admitting the secondary evidence because Margarita Prodon failed to
Moreover, granting, in arguendo, that the deed of sale did exist, the fact of its prove the loss or destruction of the deed.
loss had not been duly established. In De Vera, et al. v Sps. Aguilar (218 SCRA
602 1993), the Supreme Court held that after proof of the execution of the Deed
it must also be established that the said document had been lost or destroyed, In fine, the Court finds that the secondary evidence should not have been
thus: admitted because Margarita Prodon failed to prove the existence of the original
deed of sale and to establish its loss.
"After the due execution of the document has been established, it must next be
proved that said document has been lost or destroyed. The destruction of the xxxx
instrument may be proved by any person knowing the fact. The loss may be
shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss, or by anyone who had made,

R130 S3. Best Evidence Rule

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial responsibility of educating the Bench and the Bar on the admissibility of
Court of Manila, Branch 35 in Civil Case No. 96-78481 is hereby REVERSED evidence. An analysis leads us to conclude that the CA and the RTC both
and a new one entered ordering the cancellation of Entry No. 3816/T-84797 misapplied the Best Evidence Rule to this case, and their misapplication
inscribed at the back of TCT No. 84797 in order to remove the cloud over diverted the attention from the decisive issue in this action for quieting of title.
plaintiff-appellants’ title. We shall endeavor to correct the error in order to turn the case to the right track.

SO ORDERED.9 Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court embodies the Best Evidence

The heirs of Margarita Prodon (who meanwhile died on March 3, 2002) filed an Rule, to wit:
Omnibus Motion for Substitution of Defendant and for Reconsideration of the
Decision,10 wherein they alleged that the CA erred: (a) in finding that the pre- Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the
requisites for the admission of secondary evidence had not been complied with; subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
(b) in concluding that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had been physically other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
incapable of personally executing the deed of sale with right to repurchase; and
(c) in blaming them for not recovering the property, for not paying the realty
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
taxes thereon, and for not transferring the title in their names.
in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

On November 22, 2005, the CA issued itsresolution,11 allowing the substitution (b) When the original is in the custody or under control of the party
of the heirs of Margarita Prodon, and denying their motion for reconsideration
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
for its lack of merit.
after reasonable notice;

Hence, the heirs of Margarita Prodon (petitioners) have appealed to the Court (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
through petition for review on certiorari. documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of
time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general
Issues result of the whole; and

In this appeal, the petitioners submit the following as issues, namely: (a) (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
whether the pre-requisites for the admission of secondary evidence had been officer or is recorded in a public office.
complied with; (b) whether the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had been physically
incapable of personally executing the deed of sale with right to repurchase;and
The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving the terms of a written
(c) whether Prodon’s claim of ownership was already barred by laches. 12 document the original of the document must be produced in court. The rule
excludes any evidence other than the original writing to prove the contents
Ruling thereof, unless the offeror proves: (a) the existence or due execution of the
original; (b) the loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-
The appeal has no merit. production in court; and (c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to
which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.13
1.
The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact
Best Evidence Rulewas not applicable herein contents of a writing are brought before the court, 14 considering that (a) the
precision in presenting to the court the exact words of the writing is of more
We focus first on an unseemly error on the part of the CA that, albeit a harmless than average importance, particularly as respects operative or dispositive
instruments, such as deeds, wills and contracts, because a slight variation in
one, requires us to re-examine and rectify in order to carry out our essential

R130 S3. Best Evidence Rule

words may mean a great difference in rights; (b) there is a substantial hazard of Article 1403 of the Civil Code specifically provides that evidence of the
inaccuracy in the human process of making a copy by handwriting or agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of
typewriting; and (c) as respects oral testimony purporting to give from memory its contents. There is then no doubt that the Best Evidence Rule will come into
the terms of a writing, there is a special risk of error, greater than in the case of play.
attempts at describing other situations generally.15 The rule further acts as an
insurance against fraud.16Verily, if a party is in the possession of the best It is not denied that this action does not involve the terms or contents of the deed
evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, of sale with right to repurchase. The principal issue raised by the respondents as
the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for the plaintiffs, which Prodon challenged head on, was whether or not the deed of
fraudulent purposes that its production would expose and defeat. 17 Lastly, the sale with right to repurchase, duly executed by the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr.,
rule protects against misleading inferences resulting from the intentional or had really existed. They alleged in the complaint that:
unintentional introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings. 18
xxxx
But the evils of mistransmission of critical facts, fraud, and misleading
inferences arise only when the issue relates to the terms of the writing. Hence, 9. Such entry which could have been maliciously and deliberately done by the
the Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue.
defendant Margarita Prodon created cloud and [is] prejudicial to the title of the
When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as the
property subject matter of this case, since while it is apparently valid or
existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms,
effective, but in truth and in fact it is invalid, ineffective or unenforceable
the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked.19 In such a case, secondary evidence
inasmuch that the instrument purporting to be a Deed of Sale with right of
may be admitted even without accounting for the original. repurchase mentioned in the said entry does not exist.21

This case involves an action for quieting of title, a common-law remedy for the
xxxx
removal of any cloud or doubt or uncertainty 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, On her part, Prodon specifically denied the allegation, averring in her answer
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title. In such an that "sometime [o]n September 9, 1975, deceased Maximo S. Alvarez lawfully
action, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the entered into a Contract of Sale with Right to Repurchase, object of which is the
complainant and other claimants to place things in their proper place and to titled lot located at Endaya Street, Tondo, Manila, in favor of defendant." 22 In
make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the the pre-trial order, the RTC defined the issue to be tried as "[w]hether or not the
other. The action is for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would alleged document mentioned in the said entry is existing, valid or
see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter unenforceable,"23 and did not include the terms of the deed of sale with right to
fearlessly introduce any desired improvements, as well as use, and even abuse repurchase among the issues.
the property. For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites
must concur, namely: (a) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable Apparently, the parties were fully cognizant of the issues as defined, for none
title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (b) the deed, of them thereafter ventured to present evidence to establish the terms of the deed
claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must of sale with right to repurchase. In the course of the trial, however, a question
be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance was propounded to Prodon as to who had signed or executed the deed, and the
of validity or legal efficacy.20 question was objected to based on the Best Evidence Rule. The RTC then
sustained the objection.24 At that point began the diversion of the focus in the
The action for quieting of title may be based on the fact that a deed is invalid, case. The RTC should have outrightly overruled the objection because the fact
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable. The terms of the writing may or may sought to be established by the requested testimony was the execution of the
not be material to an action for quieting of title, depending on the ground alleged deed, not its terms.25 Despite the fact that the terms of the writing were not in
by the plaintiff. For instance, when an action for quieting of title is based on the issue, the RTC inexplicably applied the Best Evidence Rule to the case and
unenforceability of a contract for not complying with the Statute of Frauds, proceeded to determine whether the requisites for the admission of secondary
evidence had been complied with, without being clear as to what secondary

R130 S3. Best Evidence Rule

evidence was sought to be excluded. In the end, the RTC found in its judgment A review of the records reveals that Prodon did not adduce proof sufficient to
that Prodon had complied with the requisites for the introduction of secondary show the lossor explain the unavailability of the original as to justify the
evidence, and gave full credence to the testimony of Jose Camilon explaining presentation of secondary evidence. Camilon, one of her witnesses, testified that
the non-production of the original. On appeal, the CA seconded the RTC’s he had given the original to her lawyer, Atty. Anacleto Lacanilao, but that he
mistake by likewise applying the Best Evidence Rule, except that the CA (Camilon) could not anymore retrieve the original because Atty. Lacanilao had
concluded differently, in that it held that Prodon had not established the been recuperating from his heart ailment. Such evidence without showing the
existence, execution, and loss of the original document as the pre-requisites for inability to locate the original from among Atty. Lacanilao’s belongings by
the presentation of secondary evidence. Its application of the Best Evidence himself or by any of his assistants or representatives was inadequate. Moreover,
Rule naturally led the CA to rule that secondary evidence should not have been a duplicate original could have been secured from Notary Public Razon, but no
admitted, but like the RTC the CA did not state what excluded secondary effort was shown to have been exerted in that direction.
evidence it was referring to.
In contrast, the records contained ample indicia of the improbability of the
Considering that the Best Evidence Rule was not applicable because the terms existence of the deed. Camilon claimed that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had
of the deed of sale with right to repurchase were not the issue, the CA did not twice gone to his residence in Meycauayan, Bulacan, the first on September 5,
have to address and determine whether the existence, execution, and loss, as 1975, to negotiate the sale of the property in question, and the second on
pre-requisites for the presentation of secondary evidence, had been established September 9, 1975, to execute the deed of sale with right to repurchase, viz:
by Prodon’s evidence. It should have simply addressed and determined whether
or not the "existence" and "execution" of the deed as the facts in issue had been Q
proved by preponderance of evidence.
Do you also know the deceased plaintiff in this case, Maximo Alvarez, Sr. and
Indeed, for Prodon who had the burden to prove the existence and due execution his wife Valentina Clave, Mr. Witness?
of the deed of sale with right to repurchase, the presentation of evidence other
than the original document, like the testimonies of Prodon and Jose Camilon,
A
the Notarial Register of Notary Eliseo Razon, and the Primary Entry Book of
the Register of Deeds, would have sufficed even without first proving the loss
or unavailability of the original of the deed. Yes, sir.

2. Q

Prodon did not preponderantly establish the existence and due execution of the A
deed of sale with right to repurchase
Q
The foregoing notwithstanding, good trial tactics still required Prodon to
establish and explain the loss of the original of the deed of sale with right to Under what circumstance were you able to know the deceased plaintiff Maximo
repurchase to establish the genuineness and due execution of the deed. 26 This Alvarez, Sr. and his wife?
was because the deed, although a collateral document, was the foundation of her
defense in this action for quieting of title.27 Her inability to produce the original When they went to our house, sir.
logically gave rise to the need for her to prove its existence and due execution
by other means that could only be secondary under the rules on evidence. When was this specifically?
Towards that end, however, it was not required to subject the proof of the loss
of the original to the same strict standard to which it would be subjected had the
A
loss or unavailability been a precondition for presenting secondary evidence to
prove the terms of a writing.

R130 S3. Best Evidence Rule

Sometime the first week of September or about September 5, 1975, sir. You said that you told the spouse[s] Alvarez to just come back later and that
you will look for a buyer, what happened next, if any?
Q
A
What was the purpose of the spouses Maximo and Valentina in meeting you on
that date? I went to see my aunt Margarita Prodon, sir.

A Q

They were selling a piece of land, sir. A

xxxx What did you tell your aunt Margarita Prodon?

Q I convinced her to buy the lot.

At the time when the spouses Maximo Alvarez, Sr. and Valentina Clave ATTY. REAL
approached you to sell their piece of land located at Endaya, Tondo, Manila,
what document, if any, did they show you? Q

A What was the reply of Margarita Prodon, if any?

The title of the land, sir. A

xxxx She agreed, provided that she should meet the spouses, sir.

Q Q

You said that on the first week of September or September 5, 1975 spouses After Margarita Prodon told you that[,] what happened next, if any?
Maximo and Valentina approached you at the time, what did you tell the
spouses, if any?
A

A I waited for the spouses Alvarez to bring them to my aunt, sir.

I asked them to come back telling them that I was going to look for a buyer, sir.
Q

xxxx Were you able to finally bring the spouses before Margarita Prodon?

Q
A

R130 S3. Best Evidence Rule

Valentina Clave returned to our house and asked me if they can now sell the The foregoing testimony could not be credible for the purpose of proving the
piece of land, sir. due execution of the deed of sale with right to repurchase for three
reasons.1âwphi1
Q
The first is that the respondents preponderantly established that the late Maximo
What did you tell Valentina Clave? Alvarez, Sr. had been in and out of the hospital around the time that the deed of
sale with right to repurchase had been supposedly executed on September 9,
A 1975. The records manifested that he had been admitted to the Veterans
Memorial Hospital in Quezon City on several occasions, and had then been
diagnosed with the serious ailments or conditions, as follows:
Q
Period of confinement Diagnosis
We went to the house of my aunt so she can meet her personally, sir.
March 31 – May 19, 1975 • Prostatitis, chronic
• Arteriosclerotic heart disease
And did the meeting occur? • Atrial fibrillation
• Congestive heart failure
WITNESS • CFC III29
June 2- June 6, 1975 • Chest pains (Atrial Flutter)
A • Painful urination (Chronic prostatitis)30
August 23-September 3, • Arteriosclerotic heart disease
Yes, sir. 1975 • Congestive heart failure, mild
• Atrial fibrillation
• Cardiac functional capacity III-B31
ATTY. REAL
September 15-October 2, • Arteriosclerotic heart disease
1975 • Atrial fibrillation
Q • Congestive heart failure
• Pneumonia
What happened at the meeting? • Urinary tract infection
• Cerebrovascular accident, old
A • Upper GI bleeding probably secondary to
stress ulcers32
I told Valentina Clave in front of the aunt of my wife that they, the spouses,
wanted to sell the land, sir. The medical history showing the number of very serious ailments the late
Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had been suffering from rendered it highly improbable for
Q him to travel from Manila all the way to Meycauayan, Bulacan, where Prodon
and Camilon were then residing in order only to negotiate and consummate the
sale of the property. This high improbability was fully confirmed by his son,
What was the reply of your aunt Margarita Prodon at the time? Maximo, Jr., who attested that his father had been seriously ill, and had been in
and out of the hospital in 1975.33 The medical records revealed, too, that on
A September 12, 1975, or three days prior to his final admission to the hospital,
the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had suffered from "[h]igh grade fever,
That Valentina Clave should come back with her husband because she was accompanied by chills, vomiting and cough productive of whitish sticky
going to buy the lot, sir.28 sputum;"had been observed to be "conscious" but "weak" and "bedridden" with

R130 S3. Best Evidence Rule

his heart having "faint" sounds, irregular rhythm, but no murmurs; and his left LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
upper extremity and left lower extremity had suffered 90% motor loss. 34 Truly, Associate Justice
Prodon’s allegation that the deed of sale with right to repurchase had been
executed on September 9, 1975 could not command belief.

The second is that the annotation on TCT No. 84797 of the deed of sale with
right to repurchase and the entry in the primary entry book of the Register of
Deeds did not themselves establish the existence of the deed. They proved at
best that a document purporting to be a deed of sale with right to repurchase had
been registered with the Register of Deeds. Verily, the registration alone of the
deed was not conclusive proof of its authenticity or its due execution by the
registered owner of the property, which was precisely the issue in this case. The
explanation for this is that registration, being a specie of notice, is simply a
ministerial act by which an instrument is inscribed in the records of the Register
of Deeds and annotated on the dorsal side of the certificate of title covering the
land subject of the instrument.35 It is relevant to mention that the law on land
registration does not require that only valid instruments be registered, because
the purpose of registration is only to give notice.36

By the same token, the entry in the notarial register of Notary Public Razon
could only be proof that a deed of sale with right to repurchase had been
notarized by him, but did not establish the due execution of the deed.

The third is that the respondents’ remaining in the peaceful possession of the
property was further convincing evidence demonstrating that the late Maximo
Alvarez, Sr. did not execute the deed of sale with right to repurchase. Otherwise,
Prodon would have herself asserted and exercised her right to take over the
property, legally and physically speaking, upon the expiration in 1976 of the
repurchase period stipulated under the deed, including transferring the TCT in
her name and paying the real property taxes due on the properly. Her inaction
was an index of the falsity of her claim against the respondents.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, we concur with the CA that the

respondents preponderantly, proved that the deed of sale with right to
repurchase executed by the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. did not exist in fact.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 18,

2005 by the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 58624 entitled Heirs of
Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave, represented by Rev. Maximo Alvarez,
Jr. v. Margarita Prodon and the Register of Deeds of the City Manila; and
ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

R130 S3. Best Evidence Rule