De Jacob v.

CA
Facts: Petitioner Tomasa Vda. De Jacob, claiming to be the surviving spouse of
the deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob was appointed as the special administratrix for
the various estates of the deceased. However, during the proceeding for the
settlement of the said estate, Pedro Pilapil intervened by claiming his share as
the legally adopted son of Alfredo. In support of his claim he presented an order
from the judge in a petition for adoption that was filed by the deceased. He also
collaterally attacked the marriage between the deceased and the administratrix.
The lower court rendered a decision in favor of Pedro and the Court of Appeals
affirmed this decision.
Issue: Whether or not the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that
there the petitioner was married to the deceased.
Ruling: YES. The contents of a document may be proven by competent
secondary evidence other than the marriage contract. It is settled that when the
fact in issue refers to the contents of the document no evidence shall be
admissible except the original document itself however it is also settle that when
the original writing has been lose, destroyed or cannot be produced in court,
upon proof of its execution, existence and the reason for its unavailability the
offeror may without bad faith on his part offer as evidence either: the copy of the
document, the recital of the contents of the document in some authentic
document and the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
The presentation of witnesses who have firsthand knowledge as to the
occurrence of the ceremony is sufficient to establish the existence of the
marriage.

Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA

Facts: The respondent alleges that she is the sole owner of a land located in
Cagayan de Oro City which she inherited from her mother, Hermogena, the only
child of Juan Gabatan and his wife, Laureana Clarito. Respondent alleged that
upon the death of Juan Gabatan, his land was entrusted to his brother, Teofilo
Gabatan (Teofilo), and Teofilos wife, Rita Gabatan, for administration. It was also
claimed that prior to her death Hermogena demanded for the return of the land
but to no avail. After Hermogenas death, respondent also did the same but
petitioners refused to heed the numerous demands to surrender the subject
property. Petitioners denied that respondents mother Hermogena was the
daughter of Juan Gabatan with Laureana Clarito and that Hermogena or
respondent is the rightful heir of Juan Gabatan. They further contend that Juan
Gabatan died single in 1934 and without any issue and that Juan was survived by
one brother and two sisters, namely: Teofilo (petitioners predecessor-in-interest),
Macaria and Justa. These siblings and/or their heirs, inherited the subject land
from Juan Gabatan and have been in actual, physical, open, public, adverse,
continuous and uninterrupted possession thereof in the concept of owners for
more than fifty (50) years and enjoyed the fruits of the improvements thereon, to
the exclusion of the whole world including respondent. October 20, 1995 = the
RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondentCA affirmed such decision
declaring that respondents claim of filiation with Juan Gabatan was sufficiently

established during trial.The proof was a Deed of Absolute Sale on July 30, 1966
containing such declaration which was signed by Teofilo and the latters nearest
relatives by consanguinity, is a tangible proof that they acknowledged
Hermogenas status as the daughter of Juan Gabatan. Teofilo formally recognized
Hermogenas right to heirship from Juan Gabatan which ultimately passed on to
respondent.

Issue: Whether or not evidence presented Clareto is the child and sole heir of
Juan Gabatan.
Ruling: NO. The evidence as adduced DO NOT establish the filiation of Clareto to
Juan Gabatan. Our laws dictate that the best evidence of such familial tie was the
record of birth appearing the Civil Register, or an authentic document or a final
judgment in the absence of these, any proof that the child enjoyed the
continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child only in the absence of
these two classes of evidence is the anyone allowed to present other proof
admissible under the Rules of Court of the proof of paternity and filiation. To
prove the relationship of respondents mother to Juan Gabatan, our laws dictate
that the best evidence of such familial tie was the record of birth appearing in
the Civil Register, or an authentic document or a final judgment. Respondent
relied on the testimony of her witnesses but none of these witnesses had
personal knowledge of the fact of marriage of Juan to Laureana or the fact of
birth of Hermogena to Juan and Laureana. They were not yet born or were very
young when Juan supposedly married Laureana or when Hermogena was born
and they all admitted that none of them were present at Juan and Laureanas
wedding or Hermogenas birth. These witnesses based their testimony on what
they had been told by, or heard from, others as young children.
After a close scrutiny of the said photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the
Court cannot uphold the admissibility of the same. Under the best evidence rule,
when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself. Although the best evidence
rule admits of exceptions and there are instances where the presentation of
secondary evidence would be allowed, such as when the original is lost or the
original is a public record, the basis for the presentation of secondary evidence
must still be established.
In order to avail of the provisions of section 5 Rule 130 one has to prove the
existence and execution and the reason of the unavailability of the original
document. This was not done in this case.

Citibank v. Teodoro
Facts: Efren Teodoro owns a Citibank credit card and was billed by the company
P191,693.25, inclusive of interest and service charges. After several demands,
Citibank filed a Complaint for collection before the Regional Trial Court of Makati.
The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and was transferred to
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati. During trial, Citibank presented several
sales invoices or charge slips, which added up only P24,388.36. The slips were
mere photocopies but due to the fact that the copies appear to bear the

signatures of Teodoro, the trial court deemed them sufficient proof of his
purchases with the use of the credit card. The MTC ruled in favor of Citibank,
ordering Teodoro to pay the amount of P24,388.36. The RTC affirmed the MTC
decision while the CA reversed, stating that the photocopies of the sales invoices
or charge slips were insufficient to prove any liability on Teodoros part, that
while Citibank was able to prove the existence of the original sales invoices, it
failed to prove the due execution or to account for their loss or unavailability. The
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA and stated that 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 Citibank, as the offeror, failed to prove any of the
exceptions provided under Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as well as
the conditions of their admissibility. Because of the inadmissibility of the
photocopies in the absence of the originals, Teodoros obligation was not
established.
Issue: Whether or not the evidence I sufficient to establish Teodoros obligation
Ruling: No. Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that when original
document is unavailable. When the original document 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.
Applying the above Rule to the present case, before a party is allowed to adduce
secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales invoices, the
offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the
original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its
nonproduction in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad
faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct
order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. At the sound
discretion of the court, this order may be changed if necessary. In the present
case, the existence of the original sales invoices was established by the
photocopies and the testimony of Hernando, the assistant manager who testified
to the existence and due execution of the invoices. Citibank, however, failed to
prove that the originals had been lost or could not be produced in court after
reasonable diligence and good faith in searching for them. Indeed, 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. Finally, when more
than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost,
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before secondary evidence can be
given of any one. A photocopy may not be used without accounting for the other
originals
Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies Inc. v. CA and Associated Bank
Facts: Trans-Pacific Bank applied for and was granted several financial
accommodations amounting to P1, 300,000.00 by Associated Bank. The loans
were evidenced and secured by four promissory notes and a real estate
mortgage covering three parcels of land. Because it was unable to settle its

obligations in full, Trans-Pacific was granted a restructuring of the remaining

debt. To secure this set-up new promissory noted were executed. The previously
mortgaged land were also substituted by other parcels of land. According to
Trans-Pacific the lands that were released from the mortgage was then sold and
the proceeds were delivered to the Bank. After that the bank had returned the
duplicate original copies of the three promissory notes to Trans-Pacific with the
word PAID stamped thereon. Despite this the bank issued a demand to TransPacific payment the bank claimed that the promissory notes were erroneously
released.
Issue: Whether or not the Trans-Pacific had fully paid its obligations
Ruling: Trans-Pacific was not able to pay its obligations. Verily the documents
that they presented were mere duplicates and not the original. Accordingly
Article 1271 does not apply. The Rules on Evidence provide that as a general rule
when the contents of the document is the one in issue the evidence presented
must be the document itself. However this is not without exceptions a duplicate
copy may be presented. As in this case Rule 130 Section 3 par. B finds
application- whenever the document is in the possession of or under the control
of the party against whom the evidence is offered after reasonable notice has
been given to the party.
Furthermore, it must be noted that when the duplicate were being presented
there was no objection raised from the Banks counsel. Thus, granting arguendo
that the said documents were duplicates they were nonetheless admissible
because of the waiver of the other party.

Alfonso Vallarate v. CA and PP

Facts: Alfonso Vallarta was appointed as a warehouseman-cashier in the National
Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) and he continued in the said position until
December 21, 1956. When the money-property accountability of Vallarte was
audited the it was found out that he was missing an amount of P253.18 in cash,
353 cavans of rice and 50 kilos of rice, 5 cavans and 36 kilos of palay . He was
credited with the 4% shrinkage allowance of 4% of the stock received. He was
charged with malversation under Art. 217 of the RPC. The Trial Court found the
Accused guilty. Vallarte, through counsel filed a Motion for New Trial but this was
denied. He raised the case to the Court of Appeals citing several errors allegedly
committed by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not the Court erred in appreciating the documentary evidence
adduced to prove the guilt of Vallarate.
Ruling: The Court did not err in appreciating what was presented in the lower
court. Petitioner wishes that he be found not guilty on the basis of the affidavit of
two additional witnesses. However it must be noted that these were not signed.
Affidavits are not considered as best evidence. There use should be regulated by
the hearsay rule. Likewise the uncollected vouchers cannot be given weight.
Even if they are indeed documentary evidence and are admissible because there
was no objection raised on the part of the prosecution it is basic in the rules of

evidence that while a document may be admissible its evidentiary value is up for
the court to decide.
The lower court was therefore correct and the court of appeals was therefore
correct in not appreciating the evidence offered by Flavio Vasquez. As a signed
carbon copy or duplicate or a document executed at the same time or near the
same time as the original is considered as an original document under Rule 130
Section 4 par. B however it is worth noting that while the document is a carbon
copy of the original there was no authentication therewith. There was also no
explanation as to why public officer who had custody of the same was not
presented to authenticate it.
People v. Remegio Cruz
Facts: Remegio Cruz was indicted for the crime of parricide and frustrated
murder and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for parricide and an
indeterminate sentence
for frustrated murder and to indemnify the heirs of
Natividad Cocnepcion and Anita Concepcion. Remegio was married to Natividad
in 1953 they lived in Manila in the house of Natividads parents and a daughter
was born to them. They separated because Remegio allegedly beaten her up.
But they later on reconciled. In the first week of June 1956 Remegio brought his
wife and sick daughter to his parents home in Sta. Rita, Pampanga. On arriving
in the place he fetched a physician to treat his daughter. When he arrived after
fetching the physician he found that his daughter and wife had gone to
Cabanatuan City where his wifes parents lived. He tried to convince her to
return to Manila but to no avail.
On June of 1956, Daniel the father in law of Remegio reported to work at the city
public market, while sisters Natividad, Lourdes and Anita went upstairs to sleep
leaving on the ground floor Natividad who was sewing. At about midnight of that
day Anita and Lourdes heard the banging of chinaware. Alarmed, they went
downstairs only to find that Remegio was fighting with Natividad. Anita tried to
approach Remegio but he had started to hack Natividad. Anita and Lourdes ran
out to seek the help of Daniel Cabunta but they were chased by Remegio and he
was able to hack Anita until she became unconscious. Later he was caught and
was put in prison. He puts forwards the defense that he was mentally unfit to
stand trial and at the same time that he should have not been convicted for
parricide since there was no proof that he and Natividad were married.
Issue: Whether or not the court erred in convicting the appellant for parricide
when one of the essential elements was no proved according to the best
evidence rule.
Ruling: NO. The Rules of Court under Rule 130 Section 3 provide that when the
contents of a document is the subject of the inquiry no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original of the document. However it must be also
noted that when the prosecution only offered secondary evidence there was no
objection on the part of the defendants counsel. This amounts to waiver and in
the rules of evidence a waiver through the inaction of the counsel amounts to a
curative effects as regards to the evidence concerned.
Mahilum v. CA

Facts: An action for partition and damages was initiated by Gorgonia Sotes the
private respondent in this case. It appears that Pedro Mahilum was the registered
owner of a parcel of land. Upon his death he was succeeded by his six children.
Said parcel of land was allegedly sold to private respondent through an alleged
deed of sale. This was however disputed by the heirs claiming among others that
the signatures as they appear in the deed of sale is void because it was forged.
Granting without accepting that indeed the deed of sale was not a forgery, it was
nonetheless barred because it took Gorgonia Sotes 20 years before registering it.
This was not found meritorious by the RTC. It granted the partition and prayer for
damages as prayed for by Gorgonia. The CA affirmed the decision.
Issue: Whether or not a mere photocopy of the deed of sale is admissible as
evidence.
Ruling: YES. Notwithstanding Rule 130 Section 3on the best evidence rule which
provides that when the contents of the document is the subject of inquiry no
other evidence shall be admissible except the original document itself.
This admits of exceptions. Furthermore the Court noted that what was presented
in this case was not just a document it was a photocopy of the deed of sale
signed by the heirs whether by long hand as in the actual signature or by short
hand as in the case. This was bolstered by the testimony of the notary public
who was able to confirm and affirm that indeed he was able to notarize the said
document.

Pacifico Arceo Jr. v. People

Facts: Pacifico Arceo Jr. obtained a P100,000 loan from Josefino Cenizal and
several weeks later, obtained an additional P50,000 from the same. Arceo then
issued in favor of Cenizal a Bank of the Philippine Islands check worth P150,000,
postdated August 4, 1991. When the check was due, Cenizal didnt deposit it
immediately as Arceo promised that he would replace the check with cash. After
seven verbal promises, Cenizal decided to encash the check but was informed by
the BPI that the check bounced because of insufficient funds. When Cenizal went
to Arceos house to inform him of the dishonor, he was nowhere to be found.
After three days of failure to still make good the amount, Cenizal decided to file a
case of estafa and violation of BP 22 against Arceo It should be noted that the
check in question and the return slip was lost by Cenizal as a result of a fire that
occurred in his residence. After trial, Arceo was found guilty of the said crimes by
the trial court, as well as affirmed by the appellate court. Arceo claims that the
failure to present to dishonored check should amount to his acquittal.
Issue: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict Arceo for violation of
BP 22.
Ruling Yes the evidence is sufficient. The Supreme Court didnt find such
argument as meritorious, stating that the contention that the presentation of the
check in evidence as a condition sine qua non for conviction under BP 22 is
wrong. Arceo anchors his argument on Rule 130, Section 3, of the Rules of Court,
otherwise known as the best evidence rule.

However, the rule applies only where the content of the document is the subject
of the inquiry. Where the issue is the execution or existence of the document or
the circumstances surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. The gravamen of the offense is the
act of drawing and issuing a worthless check. Hence, the subject of the inquiry is
the fact of issuance or execution of the check, not its content.
Fiscal of Pampanga v. Reyes

Facts: The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two informations for libel against
Andres Guevarra. It was alleged that Guevarra, with malicious intent, published
on the weekly paper Ing Magumasid a squib (def. a short news item or filler in a
newspaper) intended to impeach the honesty, integrity and reputation of
Clemente Dayrit and Mariano Nepomuceno, with one information for each
person. The article was published in the vernacular Kapampangan. The fiscal
presented as evidence Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which are copies of the Ing
Magumasid containing the libelousarticle and another article in the vernacular
published in the same. Guevarra objected to the evidence and was sustained by
Judge Hermogenes Reyes. The fiscal filed a petition for mandamus to compel
Judge Reyes to admit the exhibits as evidence given that they are the best
evidence of the libel and the subject matter of the information. The crux of the
case is if an information charging a libel published in an unofficial language,
without including a copy of the original copy but only a mere translation to
Spanish (at the time of the case, the official languages were English and Spanish)
is valid and admissible as evidence.
Issue: Whether or not the Judge can be compelled to accept as evidence Exhibits
ABCD.
Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition for the writ of
mandamus, stated that while as a general rule, the complaint or information for
libel must set out the particular defamatory words as published, an exception is
allowed when the defamation is published in a foreign tongue. In such a case, a
translation is in order. The general rule would apply only if the article was
published in English or Spanish, in any other case it is sufficient to insert a
translation in the information. As regards the best evidence rule, the Court said
that the copies of the weekly where the libelous article was published and its
translation, constitute the best evidence of the libel charged and the newspaper
itself is the best evidence of the libel charged.

People of the Philippines v. Tandoy

Facts: Mario Tandoy was charged with the violation of the dangerous drugs act of
1972. It was alleged that poseur-buyer agents were able to buy from him
marijuana for the price of P10.00. Mario, claims as way of defense that he was
not a drug pusher and that at the time that the said buy-bust operation was at
play he was just playing cara y cruz with other people. The trial court found him
guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Issue: Whether or not the evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of Mario.
Ruling: Yes. Mario imputes to the buy-buts team the error that they committed
and that is they were not able to prove that the said 10 peso amount is the same

amount which was used to buy from him. And granting that it was, the evidence
is inadmissible because what was presented was not the original 10 pesos but a
mere photocopy. This is contrary to the best evidence rule. He is mistaken. In
order for the best evidence rule to be applied what must be the subject of inquiry
is the contents of the document. In this case the contents of the 10 peso bill is
not the issue the issue is that there was a sale that was consummated and that it
was drugs that was paid for. The best evidence rule therefore was not violated.
Heirs of Lourdes Saez v. Camorposa
Facts: A complaint for unlawful detainer with damages was filed against
Camorposa. It was alleged by the Heirs of Saez that they predecessor in interest
was the actual and lawful possessor of the land in question. As can be culled
from the facts, Franciso Camorposa was working in the land of Oboza. However
when he was terminated there arose the problem of where he would live. Our of
pity and since they were friends MARCOS Saez allowed Camorposa to live in a
portion of their property without rental. Thus they were occupying the property
of Saez under the tolerance of the latter. In his answer Camorposa denied the
allegations claiming that they had been the true and actual possessor of the
land. To support this they presented the certification issued by the Regional
Director of the DENR. Based on this the RTC ruled in favor of Camposa.
Issue: Whether or not the facsimile of the order of the DENR Regional Director is
sufficient to establish the ownership of the Camposa.
Ruling: YES. A facsimile of the original document is sufficient to establish
ownership. Under then Rule 130 on the Rules of Evidence when the contents of
the document are the subject of inquiry no evidence shall be admissible other
than the document itself. However under Section 4 of the same Rule enumerates
what may be considered as the original of a document. A facsimile falls under
this Section. It must also be noted that there was no objection on the part of the
DENR Regional Director with regards to the document. If it had been a sham as
petitioners claim then the Regional Director could have repudiated it at the
earliest instance.

Ebreo v. Ebreo
Facts: Felipe Ebreo died intestate leaving behind as heirs his five children. He left
to his children an untitled parcel of land situated in Barangay Sampaga,
Batangas City. Pursuant to the subdivision made by their father Felipe, the land
was divided into six lots identified as Lots A, B, C, D, E and F. The five heirs
executed and signed a document where they extrajudicially partitioned the
property except the portion known as Lot No. 9046-F. They agreed that said
portion shall remain under the co-ownership of all the heirs. However, plaintiffs
were surprised to discover that such portion of the land was declared for taxation
purposes in the name of defendant Antonio Ebreo. Based on the plaintiffs'
recitals, they alleged that they never sold, ceded, conveyed or transferred their
rights, share and co-ownership over Lot 9046-F. Answering the complaint, the
defendants countered that after the execution of the document of partition, Lot
9046-F was sold by the heirs to Santiago Puyo. By virtue of this sale, the
corresponding Real Property Tax Declaration was transferred in the name of
Santiago Puyo as owner. However, the deed of sale evidencing this transaction
was never presented.

Issue: Whether or not an annotation on a tax declaration of an alleged Deed of

Sale sufficiently proves a sale transpired between the parties.
Ruling: No. The fact that tax declarations for Lot 9046-F were issued in the name
of defendant Antonio Ebreo and that he paid taxes for the land provides no
evidentiary value that he was the owner thereof. Tax declarations are not
sufficient evidence to prove possession in the concept of owners. The Rules of
Evidence are clear. When the contents of the document is the one in question no
other evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. In this
case the original document of the deed of sale is likened to a phantasm which
although claimed to be present is not actually seen. Thus there was no error on
the part of the court when it refused to give credence to the annotation on a tax
declaration as an equivalent to a sale.
SSS v. Aguas
Facts: Pablo Aguas was a member of the Social Security System. He died on Dec.
1996 and was survived by his wife Rosanna and their child Jelynn. Rosanna
sought to claim the pension of Pablo. Initially this was approved by the SSS
however later on there were some oppositions in relation to the status of Jelynn,