Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VDA DE CORPUZ V
BRABANGCO (1963)
Facts
Tiburcia Brabangco is the declared owner
of two parcels of land. The surviving
widow and children of German Corpus
alleged that they were sold by the former
to Corpus in 1925 for P450, of which P300
was paid right upon the execution of the
deed of sale in due form, as witnessed by
Pablo and Bonifacio Villareal and
acknowledged by Tiburcia before the
Notary Public, Jose Tirador. The balance
was also alleged to have been paid by
Corpus to Tiburcia, as evidenced by a
receipt. Corpus heirs claim that Corpus
had been in possession of said lands from
1925 until his death. Six months after
Corpus death, however, the defendants,
with the aid and protection of policemen,
entered the property, cut down and carried
away 1,000 bamboos as well as 2 and
sacks of corn. Tiburcia denied having sold
the land, alleging that she simply
accommodated and allowed the Corpuses
to build their evacuation cottage when
Japanese
forces
occupied
the
Philippines.
Issue
Were the heirs of
Corpus able to
establish the contents
of the deed of sale
despite the absence
of the original
document?
Held
Held: Yes.
As the heirs alleged, the original deed of sale signed by
Tiburcia was lost during the war. Corpus heirs made efforts
to trace the whereabouts of Notary Public Jose Tirador to
get a copy of the deed, but the latters children said that
their parents were already dead and that their house in
chich their father had kept his documents had burned down.
The existence of the deed, however, was convincingly
proven not only by the testimony of Corpus widow, and by
the environmental facts disclosed by the evidence, but also
by the disinterested testimony of Pablo Ableza, a municipal
counselor who served as one of the witnesses in the
execution of the sale. After proper proof of the due
execution and delivery of the instrument, and its loss or
destruction, oral evidence may be given of its contents by
any person who signed the document or read it.
Doctrine(s)
It is not necessary that the witness
should be able to testify with verbal
accuracy as to the contents of a lost
instrument; it is sufficient that the
contents are stated in substance.
Witnesses cannot be expected to
recite the content word for word. It is
enough if intelligent witnesses have
read the paper and can state
substantially its contents and import
with reasonable accuracy.
COMPANIA M ARITIMA
V ALLIED FREE
WORKERS UNION
(1977)
WON the
accountants reports
(damages suffered by
the company only
amounted to
349,245.37, and not
450,000) are
admissible by virtue of
Sec 3(c), Rule 130
CITIBANK V TEODORO
(2003)
TENEBRO V CA
(2004)
CONSOLIDATED BANK
V DEL MONTE MOTOR
WORKS (2005)
NO. BER does not apply. (The content of the PN was not
subject of inquiry.)
1) The defendants failed to deny specifically and under oath
the due execution and genuineness of the document. This
judicial admission sufficiently established resps liability.
2) Had it been given the opportunity, petitioner could have
sufficiently established the original of the PN, calling into
application one exception.
2)
3)
NO.
Re Marcos siblings and Gregorio Araneta III: Petitioner did
not even attempt to provide a plausible reason why the
originals were not presented, or any compelling ground why
the court should admit these documents as secondary
evidence absent the testimony of the witnesses who had
executed them.
The fact that these documents were collected by the PCGG
in the course of its investigations does not make them per
se public records referred to in the quoted rule. Record
officer Maria Lourdes Magno, who testified that these public
and private documents had been gathered by and taken into
the custody of the PCGG in the course of the Commissions
investigation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses
was not a credible witness who could testify as to their
contents. To reiterate, [i]f the writings have subscribing
witnesses to them, they must be proved by those
witnesses. Witnesses can testify only to those facts which
are of their personal knowledge; that is, those derived from
their own perception.[35] Thus, Magno could only testify as to
how she obtained custody of these documents, but not as to
the contents of the documents themselves.
Neither did petitioner present as witnesses the
affiants of these Affidavits or Memoranda submitted to the
court. Basic is the rule that, while affidavits may be
considered as public documents if they are acknowledged
before a notary public, these Affidavits are still classified as
hearsay evidence.