Widows and Orphans Association, Inc v.
CA (Short title) - Based on the plan and other evidence by ORTIGAS, the TCTs
GR # 91797 | August 28, 1991
Petitioner: Widows And Orphans Association, Inc (WIDORA)
Respondent: CA and Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership (ORTIGAS)
(Rule 130, Sections 5-8)
DOCTRINE
Before secondary evidence may be admitted, there must be 1) proof of the
execution of the original writing and 2) that it has been lost or destroyed or
cannot be produced in court or that it is in the possession of the adverse
party who has failed to produce it after reasonable notice.
FACTS
- WIDORA filed before the RTC an application for registration of title
alleging that such is covered by TCT issued in the name of the
Mariano San Pedro y Esteban.
- WIDORA then filed an amended application alleging that the land in
Quezon City of 156 hectares was acquired from the heirs of Don
Mariano San Pedro.
- ORTIGAS filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the court had no
jurisdiction for the land have already been registered under the
Torrens System in the name of ORTIGAS.
- RTC issued an order directing to prove its contention that the TCTs
are not proper derivatives of the original certificates of titles.
- ORTIGAS filed an MR alleging that a Torrens title becomes
indefeasible after a year and it becomes conclusive and also that
the LRC itself has advised that the property is covered by valid and
subsisting titles which CFIs and the CA had sustained in cases.
- MR was denied, but set the motion to dismiss for hearing for the
purpose of enabling the applicant to prove its contention.
- The parties presented their testimonial and documentary evidence.
- RTC denied the motion to dismiss holding that the TCTs on their
face show that they were derived from OCTs pursuant to Decree
1425; that if there was an error in the correct number of OCT, no
step or measure to rectify the same was taken;
- The TCTs were not derived from any decree of registration, and
that the said TCTs being null and void, cannot be used as basis to
contest the right of the applicant to apply for registration.
- ORTIGAS filed an MR and alleging that RTC had no jurisdiction.
- RTC denied the MR and set the hearing on the merits for the
presentation of the parties' evidence on ownership.
- ORTIGAS then instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus before the CA which granted the petition of ORTIGAS.
albeit reflecting their origins as the OCTs are actually derivatives of
the original that have been issued pursuant to Decree 1425, the
mere fact that the original copy of Decree 1425, or a certified copy
thereof, can no longer be located or produced, does not mean that
Decree 1425 covering the lots was not issued.
- WIDORA argues that CA erred in sustaining the validity of TCTs
despite the absence of a supporting decree of registration and
instead utilized secondary evidence.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N CA's grounds and reasoning are baseless in law and fact.
PROVISIONS
Rule 130
Section 5. 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. (4a)
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control.
— If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party, he
must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after
satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record.
— When the original of document is in the custody of public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a)
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who
calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged
to offer it as evidence. (6a)
RULING & RATIO
1. Yes
- The plan, the testimony of the surveyor and OCT submitted by
ORTIGAS to prove the contents of Decree 1425 are merely
secondary and should not have been admitted.
- Before secondary evidence may be admitted, there must be 1)
proof of the execution of the original writing and 2) that it has been
lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court or that it is in the
possession of the adverse party who has failed to produce it after
reasonable notice.
 - Private respondent has not shown compliance with the above
requisites which would justify the admission of the secondary
evidence used and erroneously relied upon by the CA.

DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of respondent court is SET ASIDE
and the orders of the trial court in LRC Case No. Q336 entitled, "In Re-
Application for Registration of Title, WIDOWS and ORPHANS
ASSOCIATION, Inc., Applicant, ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP and DOLORES V. MOLINA, Oppositors", dated March 30,
1988 and May 19, 1989 are hereby REINSTATED insofar as the denial of
oppositor Ortigas' motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration,
respectively, are concerned and the case remanded to the trial court for trial
and adjudication on the merits.

NOTES