ANCIENT DOCUMENT RULE

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 Said couple had in their favor a TCT which respondents claimed was later on superseded by a TCT in favor of Inocencio Songco, the father of private respondents by virtue of a sale in favor of the latter.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. Arguments: Respondents based their claim on 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 thirty 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.