Vda. De Corpus v.

Brabangco
59 O.G. 8262 (1963)
Note: Mangaykay sa ko sa full text ani sa mga Official Gazette sa lib ha. Ako
ra iupload ang pic if naa
Facts:
Tiburcia Brabangco is the declared owner of two parcels of land at
Bugang, Alimodia, Iloilo, which the surviving widow and children of
German Corpus alleged 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.

Corpus heirs could not produce the deed of sale, however, which had
allegedly been lost during the war. The trial court ruled in favor of the
heirs and upheld the sale.

Issue: Were the heirs of Corpus able to establish the contents of the deed of
sale despite the absence of the original document?
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 councilor 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.

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.
Doctrine:
After proper proof of the due execution and delivery of a written
instrument, and its loss or destruction, oral evidence may be given of its
contents by any person who signed the document or read it.