EVIDENCE Best Evidence Rule Hutchison v. Buscas, GR 158554, 26 May 2005

 Hutchison v. Buscas, GR 158554, 26 May 2005

Doctrine: The rules on evidence provide that where the contents of the document are the facts in issue, the best evidence is the instrument itself. Failure to adduce such in evidence or to produce secondary evidence upon proof of loss or destruction of the former is fatal to the cause of action.

FACTS: On October 1, 1987, the Spouses Ronald and Valentine Hutchison bought from V.A. Development Enterprises, Inc. a land in San Juan, Lubao, Pampanga, and occupied said land after a title was issued in their names.

On August 2, 1989, Juanita Arrastia, the owner of the adjacent lot, sold a portion of her land to Enrique Buscas, as evidenced by a Quitclaim Deed in favor of Buscas. Though Buscas occupied said land, he failed to register his portion in his name and title remained in the name of Arrastia.

On January 10, 1995, Buscas commissioned geodetic engineer Narciso Manansala to survey his property. The survey revealed that a portion of Buscas land was occupied the Sps. Hutchison. Despite a demand latter to vacate sent to the Sps. Hutchison, however, the latter refused and insisted that the area was part of their land. A complaint for accion reinvindicatoria was filed.

Buscas presented in evidence the Quitclaim Deed to prove his title over the disputed area, as well as testified on the survey conducted by Manansala. Another geodetic engineer confirmed the first survey with a verification plan and report which had been made as directed by the MTC judge in the previous unlawful detainer case which had been dismissed.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE QUITCLAIM DEED SUFFICIENT TO PROVE BUSCAS OWNERSHIP OF THE DISPUTED AREA?

HELD: NO. The rules on evidence provide that where the contents of the document are the facts in issue, the best evidence is the instrument itself. Failure to adduce such in evidence or to produce secondary evidence upon proof of loss or destruction of the former is fatal to the cause of action. The law requires that the party who alleges a fact and substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proving it.

Art. 434 of the New Civil Code provides that “to successfully maintain an action to recover the ownership of a real proeprty, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two things: first, the identity of the land claimed, and; second, his title thereto.” In this case, Buscas failed to establish both requirements.

A cursory reading of the Quitclaim Deed reveals that it specified only the extent of the area sold. Annex “A” of the Deed, where the entire lot of Arrastia was particularly described and where the specific portion of the property sold to Buscas was marked, was not presented at the trial. The Deed itself failed to mention the metes and bounds of the land subject of the sale.

Thefore, it cannot be successfully used to identify the area Buscas was claiming and prove his ownership thereof. The presentation of the Annex “A” is essential as what defines a piece of land is not the size mentioned in the instrument but the boundaries thereof which enclose the land and indicate its exact limits.

The surveys cannot be given evidentiary weight to prove the identity of the land sold to Buscas and his ownership thereof, as they merely relied on the self-serving statement of Buscas that he owns the portion of the lot adjacent to that of the Sps. Hutchison.

Moreover, the rules on evidence provide that where the contents of the document are the facts in issue, the best evidence is the instrument itself. Here, the identity of the land claimed and Buscas’ ownership thereof are the very facts in issue.

The best evidence to prove such is the Quitclaim Deed and its Annex “A” where Buscas derives his title and where the land from which he purchased a part was described with particularity, indicating the metes and bounds thereof. Failure to adduce Annex “A” in evidence or produce secondary evidence after proof of the loss of the former is fatal to his cause.