04 WIDOWS & ORPHANS ASSOCIATION VS.

CA By: Jan Lorenzo Fevidal

G.R. No. 91797 Topic: Best Evidence Rule
August 7, 1992
Ponente: J. Feliciano
DOCTRINE: The original copy of a document or proof of subsequent loss thereof need not be produced if the document is of public
record. A copy may be produced instead, and the admissibility of such a copy in court proceedings is an exception to the ordinary rule
of secondary evidence.

Facts (Only in relation to evidence-the main case is lengthy.)

1. Widows' and Orphans Association, Inc. ("Widora") instituted Land Registration Case ("LRC") with the CFI. Widora applied
for original registration of title over a parcel of land alleging that said property is covered by a title supposedly issued in the
name of one, deceased, Mariano San Pedro y Esteban.

2. Ortigas & Co. Limited Partnership, Inc. ("Ortigas") filed an opposition to the application. The Commissioner of Land
Registration informed the trial court that the land sought to be registered was "identically the same" as that covered by Lot
7 of Transfer Certificate of Title ("TCT") No. 77652 and of Lot 8 of TCT No. 77653, both of which were issued and standing in
the name of Ortigas.

3. The trial court denied Ortigas' motion to dismiss, holding that its TCT's were apparently not derived from the OCT's
mentioned on their faces and did not appear to have been based on an existing original decree of registration.

4. Court of Appeals gave due course to the petition and nullified the trial court's order. It held that TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653
were derived from OCT No. 351 (A certified true copy thereof was submitted by Ortigas), which in turn was based on Decree
of Registration No. 1425 issued in favor of Ortigas' predecessor-in-interest in 1905, in G.L.R.O. Record No. 917 which had
been tried by the Land Registration Court of Manila.

Note: Decree of Registration No. 1425 declared that Ortigas’ predecessor owned Hacienda de Mandaloyon, a large piece of
land which includes the property Widora is trying to have registered. Thus, CA dismissed Widora’s LRC as the land is owned
by Ortigas.

5. The Court's Third Division held that the Court of Appeals erred in making factual findings determinative of Widora's
application on the basis of "secondary evidence" offered by Ortigas, in unilaterally correcting entries in the Ortigas Torrens
titles.
Note: They claimed that the CA should not have used “secondary evidence” as Ortigas was not able to prove loss of the
original document hence the need for secondary evidence, and Torrens Titles are conclusive on their face, and any
inconsistencies should be corrected only by the LRC. The secondary evidence was 1) The copy of the OCT 2) Survey plans
prepared by Ortigas’ geodetic engineer 3) Testimony by the engineer on the boundaries of the land in question and the
Hacienda de Mandaloyon as a whole.

Issue/s
Whether the certified true COPY of an OCT is considered to be secondary evidence. NO
Ruling

The Court considers that the word "secondary evidence" was inaccurate. The copy of OCT No. 351 offered by Ortigas was a
certified true copy of the original thereof found in the Registration Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. The admissibility of such a
copy in court proceedings (document is of public record) is an exception to the ordinary rule on secondary evidence; such admissibility
is in fact mandated by Section 47 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act).

Under the Land Registration Act which was in force at the time OCT No. 351 was issued, the original thereof found in the
Registration Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal was an official transcript of Decree No. 1425, with respect to the land covered by
such decree situated in the Province of Rizal. Thus, OCT No. 351 constitutes direct proof of the existence of Decree No. 1425 upon
which the Ortigas TCTs (Nos. 77652 and 77653) are based.

We believe further that the Court of Appeals was justified in relying upon the plotting prepared by Engineer Carlos Angeles
and his testimony explaining the significance thereof, notwithstanding the secondary nature of that plotting and testimony.
Authenticity and correctness of this survey plans and of Engineer Angeles's explanation thereof had already been judicially sustained
in previously decided cases. (Navarro and Del Rosario cases. In both cases statements from Angeles, as well as relevant documents
proved that Ortigas owned the land covered by OCT No. 351.) PETITION DENIED
Notes

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

SECTION 2, RULE 130. Original writing must be produced; exceptions.· There can be no evidence of a writing the contents of
which is the subject of inquiry, other than the original writing itself, except in the following cases:
C. When the original is a record or other document in the custody of a public officer;