Michael & Co. vs.

Enriquez
33 Phil. 87 (1915)

FACTS:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Cebu

dismissing the action after trial on the ground that the plaintiff did
not prove facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This action is
based on a sale with right to repurchase made by Enriquez in favor of
E. Michael and E. Michael & Co., sociedad en comandita, of which
Michael and Company (MCI)claims to be a successor by reason of
an instrument duly executed and delivered by the former to the
latter transferring property, business and assets of every kind
including the land which is the subject of this litigation. It
is alleged that the period to repurchase had expired thus
consolidating ownership in MCI. During the trial, MCI sought to
prove the execution and delivery of the conveyance
transferring to it the land described in the pacto de retro. The
TC prevented MCI from proving that fact. MCI also attempted t
o prove the fact that theinstrument so executed and
delivered was lost, it being his purpose to lay the basis
for the introduction of secondary evidence as to its
contents. The TC also prevented appellant from proving that.
While the efforts of MCI’s counsel to prove the execution and delivery
of the document were at times rather informal and
objections to such questions were properly sustained, at
others the questions put for the purpose of proving those facts
were well framed and answers should have been allowed to them;
but, even in such cases, the TC also sustained & objections to the
questions and the evidence sought to be adduced was excluded.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the TC erred in pr ohibiting the

i n tr od u c t i o n o f i nc om p e te n t e v i d e nc e
RULING:
 Trial courts do well in refusing at all times to permit the
introduction of incompetent evidence and particularly
secondary evidence of the contents of written instruments
unless the facts required by the Code of Civil Procedure as the
conditions precedent for such evidence are clearly shown
to exist. Section 321 of the Code provides: “An original
writing must be produced and proved, except as otherwise
provided in this Act. If it has been lost, proof of the loss must
first be made before evidence can be given of its
contents. Upon such proof being made, together with proof
of the due execution of the writing, its contents may be proved
by a copy or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic document or by the recollection of a witness. ”As
will be seen in this section, the writing itself must be produced
unless it has been lost or destroyed in which case, before its
contents may be proved by other evidence, it must be shown by the
party offering secondary evidence (1) that the document was
duly executed and delivered, where delivery is necessary (2)
that it has been lost or destroyed. The execution or delivery of
the document maybe established by the person or persons,
who executed it, by the person before whom its execution was
acknowledged, or by any person who was present and saw it
executed and delivered or who, after its execution and
delivery, saw it and recognized the signatures; or by a person to
whom the parties to the instruments have previously confessed the
execution thereof. The destruction of the instrument may be proved
by any person knowing the fact. The loss may be shown by any
person who knew the fact of its loss, or by anyone who has made, in
the judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the
place or places where the document or pares of similar character
are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost
was, and has been unable to find it; or who has made any
other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the Court that
the document was indeed lost. If it appears , on an attempt to
prove the loss , that the document is in fact in existence , then
the proof of loss or destruction fails and secondary evidence is
inadmissible unless section 322 of the Civil codeof Procedure
should be applicable.After proper proof of the due execution and
delivery and its loss or destruction, oralevidence maybe given
of its contents by any person who signed the document, or
who read it,or heard it read knowing, or it being proved from other
sources, that the document so read wasthe one in question. Such
evidence may also be given by any person who was present when
thecontents of the document was being talked over between the
parties thereto to such an extent asto give him reasonably full
information as to its contents; or the contents maybe proved by
any person to whom the parties to the instrument have
confessed or stated the contents thereof; or by a copy
thereof; or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document