EVIDENCE Secondary Evidence Ebreo v. Ebreo, GR 160065, 28 February 2006

 Ebreo v. Ebreo, GR 160065, 28 February 2006

Doctrine: Under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original of a deed or document, the party has to prove with the requisite quantum of evidence, the loss or destruction or unavailability of all the copies of the original of said deed or document.

The annotation of the Deed of Sale in a tax declaration is not sufficient proof of the transfer of property.

FACTS: Felipe Ebreo died intestate in 1926, leaving behind as his heirs his 5 children, Gil, Flaviano, Felino, Ignacio and Felipa. He also left behind an untitled parcel of land in Barangay Sampaga, Batangas City, which, pursuant to the subdivision made by him, was subdivided into six lots, identified as Lots A, B, C, D, E and F.

On September 11, 1967, Felipe’s heirs executed and asigned a document entitled, “Kasulatan ng Pagbabahagi ng Lupa,” whereby they extrajudicially partitioned the property, except the portion known as Lot No. 9046-F.

They agreed that said Lot F would remain under the co-ownership of Gil, Flaviano, Felino, Ignacio and the heirs of Felipa, who had already died. However, the plaintiffs were surprised to discover that Lot F was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Antonio Ebreo, Felino’s son.

The defendants alleged that, after the execution of the partition agreement, Lot F was sold by the heirs to Santiago Puyo, by virtue of which, the corresponding Real Property Tax Declaration was transferred in the latter’s name.

The lot was allegedly subsequently sold by Puyo to Antonio Ebreo, for which a new tax declaration was issued. However, the deed of sale evidencing the alleged transaction between the heirs and Puyo, which was claimed to have been executed and ratified in 1968 before Atty. Doroteo Chavez, was never presented.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PRESENT THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE OF THE LAND TO PUYO FATAL TO THEIR CLAIMS?

HELD: YES. The defendants claim that the Deed of Sale could not be presented because the copy on file with the Office of the City Assessor was lost in the fire which occurred in May 23, 1979. They presented the testimonies of Antonio Pajilan, an employee at the City Assessor’s Office, Felino Ebreo, and Asuncion Aguado, the stepdaughter of Santiago Puyo.

However, the testimonies are at most secondary evidence which are inadmissible considering that the defendants failed to prove any of the exceptions provided in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and to establish conditions for their admissibility.

Under this rule, before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original of a deed or document, the party has to prove with the requisite quantum of evidence, the loss or destruction or unavailability of all the copies of the original of said deed or document.

The offeror must prove:

a)       The execution and existence of the original;

b)      The loss and destruction of the original or its non-production in court; and

c)       Unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the part of the offeror.

The annotation of the Deed of Sale in a tax declaration is not sufficient proof of the transfer of property and inasmuch as the subject of inquiry is the Deed of Sale, it was incumbent on the defendants to adduce in evidence the original or a copy of the deed consistent with Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.