Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Court Of Appeals
G.R. No. 117384. October 21, 1998
FACTS: Petitioners claimed that they bought a land from the Madrid
brothers, for P4,000.00 and a deed of sale was executed on May 18,
1959, and that they have been in actual, physical, continuous and open
possession of the property since then. However, in October 1986,
private respondents managed to obtain a Torrens Title over the said
land.
The Madrids denied the sale and assuming that a deed exists, the same
is fictitious and while they admit petitioners possession of the land, they
assert that this possession is in defiance of their repeated demands that
they surrender it. On November 20, 1986, petitioners filed an action for
reconveyance with damages against private respondents.
During the trial, petitioners were unable to present the original deed of
sale since it was lost. So they were forced to offer a photo copy, Exhibit
A of the purported original carbon copy of the deed of sale.
However, the trial court ruled that Exhibit A was inadmissible in
evidence.
No attempt was done to produce the copies retained by the notary
public. The Court held that the xerox copy of a certified true copy of the
original issued by the notary public cannot be admitted in evidence to
prove the conveyance of the land in question. Trial court dismissed the
complaint.
CA rendered ruled that Exhibit A was admissible in evidence for failure
of the private respondents to object when it was offered during the trial;
however, the same had no probative value to support the allegation of
the petitioners that the land was sold to them in 1959.
ISSUE: Who has a better right over the land?
RULING: The petitioners. They maintain that aside from Exhibit A they
had presented other evidence during the trial to prove the existence of
the sale. First, the testimony of the notary public, who acknowledged the
execution of the deed of sale, second, their long possession of the land