Pag

e1

SER

CASE ISSUE RULING

G.R. No. 135216 August 19,

1999

TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, petitioner,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO

PILAPIL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS for

the Province of Camarines Sur, and

JUAN F. TRIVINO as publisher of

"Balalong,"

Whether or not the reconstructed

marriage license is admissible

Yes. The Petition is meritorious. Petitioner's marriage is

valid, but respondent’s adoption has not been

sufficiently established.

"It is settled that if the original writing has been lost or

destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof

of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability,

its contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its

contents in some authentic document, or by

recollection of witnesses."13 Upon a showing that the

document was duly executed and subsequently lost,

without any bad faith on the part of the offeror,

secondary evidence may be adduced to prove its

contents.14

In the present case, due execution was established by

the testimonies of Adela Pilapil, who was present during

the marriage ceremony, and of petitioner herself as a

party to the event. The subsequent loss was shown by

the testimony and the affidavit of the officiating priest,

Monsignor Yllana, as well as by petitioner's own

declaration in court. These are relevant, competent

and admissible evidence. Since the due execution and

the loss of the marriage contract were clearly shown by

the evidence presented, secondary evidence —

testimonial and documentary — may be admitted to

prove the fact of marriage.

[G.R. No. 150905. September 23,

2003]

CITIBANK, N.A.

MASTERCARD, petitioner, vs. EFREN S.

TEODORO, respondent.

Whether the photocopies of the

sales invoices or charge slips,

marked as Exhibits “F” to “F-4,” were

competent proofs of the obligations

of respondent.

No. The original copies of the sales invoices are

the best evidence to prove the alleged

obligation. Photocopies thereof are mere secondary

evidence. As such, they are inadmissible because

petitioner, as the offeror, failed to prove any of the

exceptions provided under Section 3[13] of Rule 130 of

Pag

e2

the Rules of Court, as well s the conditions of their

admissibility. Because of the inadmissibility of the

photocopies in the absence of the originals,

respondent’s obligation was not established.

The loss of the originals and reasonable diligence in the

search for them were conditions that were not met,

because the sales invoices might have been found by

Equitable. Hernandez, testifying that he had requested

the originals from Equitable, failed to show that he had

subsequently followed up the request

G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO

APPROVE THE WILL OF RICARDO B.

BONILLA deceased, MARCELA

RODELAS, petitioner-appellant, vs.

AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL., oppositors-

appellees, ATTY. LORENZO

SUMULONG, intervenor.

Whether a holographic will which

was lost or cannot be found can be

proved by means of a photostatic

copy

Yes.

If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and

no other copy is available, the will can not be

probated because the best and only evidence is the

handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary

that there be a comparison between sample

handwritten statements of the testator and the

handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy

of the holographic will may be allowed because

comparison can be made with the standard writings of

the testator.

Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509,

(footnote) : "Perhaps it may be proved by a

photographic or photostatic copy. Even a

mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar

means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the

handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and

tested before the probate court," Evidently, the

photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed

holographic will may be admitted because then the

authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can

be determined by the probate court

Pag

e3

G.R. No. 145842 June 27, 2008

EDSA SHANGRI-LA HOTEL

AND RESORT, INC., RUFO B.

COLAYCO, RUFINO L. SAMANIEGO,

KUOK KHOON CHEN, and KUOK

KHOON TSEN, petitioners, vs. BF

CORPORATION, respondent.

G.R. No. 145873 June 27, 2008

CYNTHIA ROXAS-DEL

CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. BF

CORPORATION, respondent.

Whether or not the [CA] committed

grave abuse of discretion in

disregarding issues of law raised by

petitioners in their appeal

[particularly in admitting in evidence

photocopies of Progress Billing Nos.

14 to 19, PMIs and WVOs].

No. The petition has no merit.

The only actual rule that the term "best evidence"

denotes is the rule requiring that the original of a writing

must, as a general proposition, be produced17 and

secondary evidence of its contents is not admissible

except where the original cannot be had.

Secondary evidence of the contents of a written

instrument or document refers to evidence other than

the original instrument or document itself.18 A party

may present secondary evidence of the contents of a

writing not only when the original is lost or destroyed,

but also when it is in the custody or under the control of

the adverse party. In either instance, however, certain

explanations must be given before a party can resort

to secondary evidence.

The trial court correctly allowed the presentation of the

photocopied documents in question as secondary

evidence. Any suggestion that BF failed to lay the

required basis for presenting the photocopies of

Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19 instead of their originals has

to be dismissed. The orig documents were at the hands

of ESHRI Four factual premises are readily deducible

from the above exchanges, to wit: (1) the existence of

the original documents which ESHRI had possession of;

(2) a request was made on ESHRI to produce the

documents; (3) ESHRI was afforded sufficient time to

produce them; and (4) ESHRI was not inclined to

produce them.

Sec. 6 of Rule 130,:

SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse

party's custody or control. - If the document is in

the custody or under control of the adverse

party, he must have reasonable notice to

produce it. If after such notice and after

Pag

e4

satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to

produce the document, secondary evidence

may be presented as in the case of loss.

G.R. No. 150206 March 13,

2009

Heirs of TEOFILO GABATAN vs. Hon.

COURT OF APPEALS and LOURDES

EVERO PACANA, Respondents

WON a photocopy of the deed of

sale is admissible as secondary

evidence

No.

After a close scrutiny of the said photocopy of the

Deed of Absolute Sale, the SC did not uphold the

admissibility of the same.

In the case at bar, a perusal of the transcript of the

testimony of Felicisima Nagac Pacana (who identified

the photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale) plainly

shows that she gave no testimony regarding the

whereabouts of the original, whether it was lost or

whether it was recorded in any public office.

There is an ostensible attempt to pass off Exhibit H as an

admissible public document. For this, respondent relied

on the stamped notation on the photocopy of the

deed that it is a certified true xerox copy and said

notation was signed by a certain Honesto P. Velez, Sr.,

Assessment Officer, who seems to be an officer in the

local assessor’s office. Regarding the authentication of

public documents, the Rules of Court38 provide that the

record of public documents, when admissible for any

purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication

thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having

legal custody of the record, or by his deputy.39 The

attestation of the certifying officer must state, in

substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the

original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may

be.40