Vda. de Corpus vs.

Brabangco
59 O.G. 8262 (1963)

FACTS:

Defendant Tiburcia Brabangco is the owner of a certain

parcel of land. Plaintiffs, the surviving widow and children of the
deceased German Corpus alleges that the land was sold by
defendant Tiburcia Brabangco to their father German Corpus
for and in consideration of P450 of which P300 was paid right
upon the execution of the Deed of sale in due form witnessed by
Pablo Albeza and Bonifacio Villareal (now
deceased) and acknowledged be defendant Brabangco
before notary Public Jose Tirador (also deceased). At the
same time, Plaintiffs Corpus allege that their predecessor in
interest was and is in possession of said lands up to his death
until Defendants with the aid and protection of policemen
entered the premises and
got bamboos and corn. Defendants, on the other hand, allege
that a sale never took place. Defendants’ answer avers “that
they simply accommodated and allowed the Plaintiffs Corpus
to build their evacuation cottage when Japanese forces
occupied the Philippines. Plaintiffs filed a case against
the defendants. With reference to the deed of sale from
which the plaintiffs’ case draw its cause of action was said to
be lost during the war. The trial court ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs and upheld the sale. The defendants appealed
claiming that the sale never took place since the document of
sale could not be produced and the plaintiff has failed to
establish the contents of the deed of sale as required by Rule 130.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the Plaintiffs have sufficiently proven the

existence, due execution and subsequent loss of the Deed of
sale

RULING:
 Yes. The plaintiff declared that the original deed of sale
signed by defendant Tiburcia was lost during the war. The record
of the present case will bear that its existence was
convincingly proven not only by the testimony of Heraclea Vda.
De Corpus, the surviving widow, and by the environmental facts
disclosed by the evidence, but also by the disinterested testimony of
Pablo Albeza. After proper proof of the due execution &
delivery of the instrument & its loss
or d e s t r u c t i o n , o r al e vi d e n c e m a y b e g i ve n o f i t s c o
n t e n t s b y a n y p e r s o n w h o s i g n e d t h e document, or who
read it. As to the second issue, it is not necessary, in order to admit
evidence of the contents of a lost instrument, that the witness should
be able to testify with verbal accuracy to its contents; it is sufficient
if they are able to state it in substance. Witnesses cannot be
expected to recite the content word for word. It is enough
if intelligent witnesses have read the paper & can state substantially
its contents & import with reasonable accuracy. Thus, it was held
sufficient if the witness can recollect and testify to facts
showing the presence of essential elements of a contract,
namely; consent, subject matter, consideration and form in
certain instances. In the case at bar, the evidence adduced by the
plaintiffs are more than enough to satisfy the statutory requirements
as to execution and subsequent loss of the deed of sale as well as to
its contents.