Gov. of the Phil. Islands v.

Martinez certified to be a true copy thereof, is admissible evidence as

G.R. No. L-11889 | 44 Phil. 817 | January 10, 1918 the original writing.
Petition:
ISSUE
Petitioner: Government of the Philippine Islands
W/N the certified copy can be admitted by the court
Respondents: Carmen Martinez, Dolores Martinez, and Julio Salvador
RULING & RATIO
FACTS
- NO.
- Dolores and Carmen Martinez instituted proceedings for settlement
o The certified copy is not a true copy of the document of sale
of titles to lands in Iloilo.
which is said to have been executed by the sisters in favor
o Julio Salvador entered his appearance and claimed title to
of Domenech.
said lots, alleging that he was in actual possession thereof.
 It’s a copy of the recital appearing in the books of
o CFI of Iloilo denied the claim of the sisters in favor of
the registry with respect to urban property.
Salvador.
 The effect of the certified copy as evidence is that
 The court opined that the sisters sold the land to
said document was presented to the registrar of
one Domenech and the latter sold it to Salvador.
deeds. It was not a copy of the original document.
- The sisters denied having sold the lots to Domenech and executing a
 It does not prove that the said lots were sold for the
document of sale of the lots in favor of the latter.
simple reason that the document presented may
o The attorney for Salvador then presented a certified copy
have been false/simulated and the signatures may
issued by the register of deeds of Iloilo
not have been authentic.
 The copy stated the sisters sold the lots to
 Hence, it could not, unlike the original writing, be
Domenech.
properly admitted as evidence in the present case
o The sisters argued that the copy should not be admitted.
on the ground that it was a public document
 That it has not been satisfactorily proved that the
according to section 299.
document of sale said to have been executed by
o Also, this secondary evidence of said document should not
them in favor of Domenech referred to the lots.
have been admitted by the court for the reason that
 That the previous existence of such document has
Salvador had not first complied with the provisions of Sec.
not been proved nor had anybody seen it before its
321 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
supposed loss.
 Sec. 321 requires that Salvador ought first to have
o The lower court admitted the copy as secondary and
proved the loss of said original document and that
supplementary evidence of the lost document of sale.
the same was duly signed and only then could he
 On the ground that Salvador's counsel did all he
have proved the contents thereof through a
could possibly do when he found himself obliged to
certified copy of the record.
present said document.
 The best obtainable evidence should be adduced to
- The sisters argued against the court’s admission of the copy
prove every disputed fact, and a failure to produce
o Salvador countered that Sec. 299 of the Code of Civil
it, along with an attempt instead to sustain the
procedure provides that a copy of a public writing, duly
issue by inferior evidence, will authorize the
 inference that the party does not furnish the best
evidence because it would tend to defeat, instead
of sustaining, the issue of his part.
 No evidence shall be received which is merely
substitutionary in its nature, so long as the original
evidence can be had.
 Salvador failed to present the original document
and failed to prove that the same was lost or
destroyed and that a proper search of the same was
made.
 The notary public was also not asked of the
whereabouts of the document nor was he
presented in trial.

DISPOSITION
The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and the claims of Julio
Salvador is denied; and we declare that the two lots Nos. 873 and 450
should be adjudicated to the appellants Carmen and Dolores Martinez and
be registered in their name.