7/24/2019 #27 Prodon vs Alvarez

1/2

Prodon vs. Alvarez

Facts:

Plaintiffs are the heirs of Maximo Alvarez Sr. while the defendants are the heirs of

Margarita Prodon. The plaintiffs filed a complaint for quieting of title with respect to aparticular land in which they alleged that their parents had been in possession of the land

and the registered owner thereof and they could not locate the owners duplicate copy of

T!T "o. #$%&%' but the original copy of T!T "o. #$%&% on file with the (egister of

)eeds of Manila was intact.

*owever' the original copy contained an entry stating that the property had been sold to

defendant Prodon sub+ect to the right 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.

Prodon on the other hand contended that she had become absolute owner of the property

by reason of the failure of Maximo Alvarez to repurchase such.

The (T! opined that although the deed itself could not be presented as evidence in court

as 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 (egister of )eeds of

Manila' its contents could nevertheless be proved by secondary evidence.

The (T! concluded that the original copy of the deed of sale with right to repurchase had

been lost' and that earnest efforts had been exerted to produce it before the court. -t ruledin favor of Prodon.

n appeal to !A' the !A concluded differently' in that it held that Prodon had not

established the existence' execution' and loss of the original document as the pre/

requisites for the presentation of secondary evidence. -ts application of the 0est 1vidence

(ule naturally led the !A to rule that secondary evidence should not have been admitted.

Issue:

2" best evidence rule applicable in the present case3

Ruling:

"o. The 0est 1vidence (ule applies only when the terms of a written document are the

sub+ect of the inquiry. -n an action for quieting of title based on the inexistenceof a deed

of sale with right to repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property'

7/24/2019 #27 Prodon vs Alvarez

2/2

therefore' the 0est 1vidence (ule does not apply' and the defendant is not precluded from

presenting evidence other than the original document.

The !A and the (T! both misapplied the 0est 1vidence (ule to this case.

The 0est 1vidence (ule applies only when theterms of a writing are in issue. 2hen theevidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts' such as the existence' execution

or delivery of the writing' without reference to its terms' the 0est 1vidence (ule cannot

be invo4ed. -n such a case' secondary evidence may be admitted even without

accounting for the original.