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TCT which respondents claimed was later on superseded by a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