a. Exhibit 3 - "Traduccion Al Castellano de la Esceritura de
Particion Extrajudicial" it is in this document where the fishpond in question FACTS: was adjudicated in favor of Demetria's daughter this is consolidation of two civil cases in order to recover a Alberta. parcel of land. b. Exhibit 7 - "Escritura de Venta Absoluta" wherein Alberta Guevarra and Limpin sold the said fishpond in favor of The first case: Inocencio Songco. Petitioners claim that in order for these two documents to be within the ancient document an action for recovery of possession with damages and rule, exempting them from proof of due execution and preliminary injunction filed by petitioner heirs against authenticity, not only must they be more than 30 years Aurelio Songco and John Doe. old, they must also be free from alteration and they alleged that they are the heirs of the original owner suspicions. of the said parcel of land, Demetria Lacsa. they assert that since the first pages of the they claimed that Lacsa owned the said land which documents were not signed by the alleged parties consisted partly of a fishpond and uncultivated open thereto this fact constitutes an indelible blemish that lands. can beget alterations. they claimed that the principal respondent was able to occupy and claim possession of the said land through stealth and fraud and caused the said land to be cleared RATIO: for expanded occupancy thereof. 1. for a document to fall under the ancient document rule several requirements must be met: The second case: a. more than 30 years old the documents in question fulfill this requirement since they were executed at petitioners call for the cancellation of title, ownership 1923 (Exhibit 3 extrajudicial partition) and 1924 with damages and preliminary injunction (Exhibit 7 absolute sale). (The case was decided in they also allege that they are the heirs of the original 1991) b. it is produced from a custody in which it would owner of the parcel of land Demetria Lacsa. naturally be found if genuine both copies of the in this case, they also allege that respondents later said documents were certified as exact copies of the abandoned the land in dispute after the first case was original on file with the Register of Deeds by the filed but they merely transferred to the adjoining Deputy Register of Deeds. fishpond owned by respondents. there is also further certification with regards to also, that the documents which respondents rely for their the Pampango translation of Exhibit 3. title are spurious and were probably fakes (Exhibits 3 and being certified, these documents can also be 7) considered as found in the proper custody. Respondents denied these material allegations. c. the document must appear on its face to be genuine petitioners in this case, did not present conclusive evidence to support their allegation of falsification of They claim that the documents on which petitioners would documents. base their claim are spurious such that the Original Certificate they merely alluded to the fact that the of Title in favor of Demetria Lacsa was merely a signatures in the first pages of the documents RECONSTITUTED COPY; also such OCT was later on cancelled were lacking therefor could have easily led to in favor of Guevarra and Limpin, who were Lacsa's daughter their substitution. Court cannot uphold the surmise absent any and son in law respectively. Said couple had in their favor a proof whatsoever; a contract apparently honest TCT which respondents claimed was later on superseded by a and lawful on its face must be treated as such TCT in favor of Inocencio Songco, the father of private and one who assails it must present conclusive respondents by virtue of a sale in favor of the latter. The evidence of falsification. lower court held in favor of the respondents stating that moreover, the last requirement refers to the Guevarra and Limpin did sell the said parcel of land to the EXTRINSIC quality of the document itself. respondents. the lack of signatures, absent any alterations or circumstances of suspicion cannot be held to detract from the fact that the documents in question, which were CERTIFIED as copied of CA affirmed the decision. the originals in the file with the Register of Deeds are genuine and free from any blemish or circumstances of suspicion. ISSUE: WON the documents which repondents based their claim HELD: Petition denied. (Exhibit 3 and 7) can be considered as "ancient documents" under Section 22 Rule 132.