PETRONILO J. BARAYUGA v.

ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

655 scra 640, August 17, 2011
FACTS:
The North Philippine Union Mission elected the members of the Board of Trustees of
AUP, Dayson was elected chairman while Barayuga was chosen secretary. In January 2001, the
Board of Trustees appointed Barayuga as president of AUP. An audit was conducted in
November 2002 where it was revealed that the petitioner had committed serious violations of
fundamental rules and procedure in the disbursement and use of funds. As a consequence they
voted to remove him as President based on their findings. Barayuga asked for reconsideration;
however, it was denied by the Board because hisreasons were not meritorious. He brought a suit
for injunction and damages in the RTC praying forthe issuance of a temporary restraining order
against AUP and its Board of Trustees, which wasgranted by the RTC. The respondents filed a
petition for certiorari in the CA, which rendered itsdecision nullifying the RTCs writ of
preliminary injunction.
ISSUE:
Whether the document presented had evidentiary value.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the document had no evidentiary value. It had not been officially
adopted for submission to and approval of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was
nothing but an unfilled model form. As such, it was, at best, only a private document that could
not be admitted as evidence in judicial proceedings until it was first properly authenticated in
court.
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires authentication as a condition for the
admissibility of a private document. For the RTC to base its issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction on the mere photocopies of the document, especially that such document was designed
to play a crucial part in the resolution of the decisive issue on the length of the term of office of
the petitioner, was gross error.
Vicente Manzano, Jr., Vs Marcelino Garcia,
661 scra 350, November 28, 2011
FACTS:
This case involves a land sold through a pacto de retro, where the seller is
RespondentGarcia and the buyer is Petitioners predecessor-in-interest The cases were
consolidated and tried by the trial court. Vicente presented the TCT over the property and the
notarized duly executed pacto de retro sale. Witnesses, the attorney who notarized the pacto de
retro and the witness to thenotarization both testied that the person who introduced himself as
MarcelinoGarcia during the notarization was not the same person as the one now in court
wherein the real Marcelino is the one in court.RTC ruled in favor of Vicente, upholding the
validity of the notarized public document and saying that Garcia failed to overcome its
presumption of validity. However, CA Reversed said decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the presumption of validity has been overcome
HELD:
The Court ruled in the affrimative. Vicente in this case is arguing that Garcia should have
presented an expert witness to show thathis signatures were forged. Supreme Court disagrees.
Expert opinion is not binding on the courts and thecourts still has the discretion whether to
consider it or not, or base their decision on their own. Vicente likewise argues in upholding the
presumption of regularity in a notarized deed of pactode retro sale. While it is true that a
notarized document enjoys such presumption, it is notabsolute and may be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence. Irregularities in a notarizeddocuments may be established by oral evidence
of persons present in the notarization.In this case, the presumption has been overcome by the
testimony of the attorney who notarizedthe document. As the very ocial who attested to the
crucial facts of the notarization, he admitted in open court that the person who appeared before
him is dierent from the one nowin Court.
HEIRS OF MARGARITA PRODON v. HEIRS OF MAXIMO S. ALVAREZ AND
VALENTINA CLAVE
G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013
FACTS:
The heirs of spouses maximo s. alvarez and Clave claimed that they could not locate the
owners duplicate copy pertaining to the land they inherited from their parents. Prodon claimed
on the other hand that, the late Maximo Alvarez Sr. had executed the deed of sale with right to
repurchase and this had been registeredwith the register of deeds and duly annotated on the title.
She had become the absolute owner of the property due to its non- repurchase within the given
period. However, the custodian of the records of the proprty attested that the copy of the deed of
sale could not be found in the files of the register of deeds of manila. The RTC rendered
judgment in favor of Prodon while the CA reversed said ruling. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the best evidence rule was applicable in this case.
HELD:
Best evidence rule was not applicable herein. The best evidence rule stipulates that in
proving the terms of a written document the original of the document must be produced in court.
The rule excludes any evidence other than the original writing to prove the contents thereof,
unless the offeror proves: (a) the existence or due execution of the original; (b) the loss and
destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-production in court; and (c) the absence of
bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.
Indeed, for Prodon who had the burden to prove theexistence and due execution of the deed of
sale with right to repurchase, the presentation of evidence other than the original document, like
the testimonies of Prodon and Jose Camilon, the Notarial Register of Notary Eliseo Razon, and

the Primary Entry Book of the Register of Deeds, would have sufficed even without first proving
the loss or unavailability of the original of the deed.
THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION (SOLIDBANK), V. DEL
MONTE MOTOR WORKS, INC.,
465 scra 117, July 29, 2005
FACTS:
Solidbank filed before the RTC of Manila a complaint for recovery of sum of money
against respondents. Petitioner, a domestic banking and trust corporation, alleges therein that it
extended in favor of respondents a loan in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as
evidenced by a promissory note executed by respondents on the same date which is payable by
installmets. As respondents defaulted on their monthly installments, the full amount of the loan
became due and demandable pursuant to the terms of the promissory note. As a result, petitioner
filed a complaint and attached to its complaint a photocopy of the promissory note supposedly
executed by respondents, a copy of the demand letter it sent respondents, and statement of
account pertaining to respondents loan.
ISSUE:
Whether the best evidence rule should apply in the case at bar.
HELD:
The Court declare that best evidence rule finds no application to this case. The best
evidence rule as stated in our Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is not absolute. As quoted earlier,
the rule accepts of exceptions one of which is when the original of the subject document is in the
possession of the adverse party. As pointed out by petitioner in its motion to inhibit, had it been
given the opportunity by the court a quo, it would have sufficiently established that the original
of Exhibit A was in the possession of respondents which would have called into application one
of the exceptions to the best evidence rule.
Significantly, as respondents failed to deny specifically the execution of the promissory note.
This being the case, there was no need for petitioner to present the original of the promissory
note in question. Their judicial admission with respect to the genuineness and execution of the
promissory note sufficiently established their liability to petitioner regardless of the fact that
petitioner failed to present the original of said note. Indeed, when the defendant fails to deny
specifically and under oath the due execution and genuineness of a document copied in a
complaint, the plaintiff need not prove that fact as it is considered admitted by the defendant.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE and SPORTS v. JULIA DEL ROSARIO,

MARIA DEL ROSARIO, PACENCIA DEL ROSARIO, and HEIRS OF SANTOS DEL
ROSARIO
449 scra 299, January 26, 2005

FACTS:
Respondents filed before the trial court a complaint for Recovery of Possession against
petitioner DECS. Alleging that they own a parcel of land which was occupied by the petitioner.
DECS countered that KPPSs occupation of a portion of the Property was with the express
consent and approval of respondents father. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing
respondents complaint for recovery of possession. The Court of Appeals REVERSED and
ordering the defendant to vacate the subject premises.The appellate court denied DECS motion
for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the court of appeals gravely erred in holding that petitioner failed to prove the
due execution or existence of the deed of donation and the resolution of the municipal council
accepting the donation, as well as the loss of the documents as the cause of their unavailability
HELD:
The best or primary evidence of a donation of real property is an authentic copy of the
deed of donation with all the formalities required by Article 749 of the Civil Code. The duty to
produce the original document arises when the subject of the inquiry are the contents of the
writing in which case there can be no evidence of the contents of the writing other than the
writing itself. Simply put, when a party wants to prove the contents of the document, the best
evidence is the original writing itself.
A party may prove the donation by other competent or secondary evidence under the
exceptions in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. DECS did not introduce in
evidence the municipal council Resolution accepting the donation. There is also no proof that the
donee communicated in writing its acceptance to the donor aside from the circumstance that
DECS constructed the school during Isaias lifetime without objection on his part. There is
absolutely no showing that these steps were noted in both instruments.
Rogelio Dantis v. Julio Maghinang
695 scra 599, April 10, 2013
FACTS:
The case draws its origin from a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of
possession with damages filed by petitioner Rogelio Dantis against respondent Maghinang, Jr..
Rogelio alleged that he was the registered owner of a parcel of land and that he acquired
ownership of the property through a deed of extraJudicial partition of the estate of his deceased
father. However, Julio Jr. occupied and built a house on a portion of his property without any
right at all. Dantis added that he was constrained to institute an ejectment suit against Julio,
4

Jr.before the Municipal Trial Court but the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and
lack of cause of action. Julio claimed that his father bought the said lot from the parents of
Rogelio Dantis. He admitted that the affidavit was not signed by the alleged vendor and that the
receipt he presented was admittedly a mere photocopy.
ISSUE:
Whether the receipt may be admitted as evidence
HELD:
The undated handwritten receipt is considered secondary evidence being a mere
photocopy which, in this case, cannot be admitted to prove the contents of such receipt. The best
evidence rule requires that the highest available degree of proof must be produced. For
documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best proved by the production of the
document itself to the exclusion of secondary or substitutionary evidence, pursuant to Rule 130,
section 1. ; secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, section
5,which states that: when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without
bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. Proof of the due
execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute the basis for the introduction
of secondary evidence. Guided by these, the court held that Julio jr., failed toprove the due
execution of the original of affidavit as well as its subesequent loss.