You are on page 1of 3

Edsa Shangrila vs BF FACTS: Petitioner and respondent entered into a construction contract.

The respondent constructed the petitioner’s hotel and the petitioner paid the former based on the work accomplished as described in the monthly progress billings. Under this arrangement, BF shall submit a monthly progress billing to Shangrila which would then re measure the work accomplished and prepare a Progress Payment !ertificate for that month’s progress billing. There were "# progress billings report. $ut of the "#, petitioner only paid " "% progress billing report. Thus, the respondent filed a collection case against the petitioner to pay "& "# progress billings report. 'uring the trial, photocopies of Progress Billing (os. "& to "# and the complementing P)*s and the +,$s were presented by the respondent. ISSUE: +$( photocopied documents are admissible in e-idence. HELD: /es. 0 party may present secondary e-idence of the contents of writing not only when the original is lost or destroyed, but also when it is in the custody or under the control of the ad-erse party. *n either instance, howe-er, certain e1planations must be gi-en before a party can resort to secondary e-idence. 'uring the trial, the following were established2 3"4 the e1istence of the original documents which 5S67* had possession of8 394 a re:uest was made on 5S67* to produce the documents8 3%4 5S67* was afforded sufficient time to produce them8 and 3&4 5S67* was not inclined to produce them. BF e1plained that it could not present the original of the documents since they were in the possession of 5S67* which refused to hand them o-er to BF despite re:uests. !learly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the e1ception under Sec. %3b4 of 7ule "%;. *n other words, the conditions sine qua non for the presentation and reception of the photocopies of the original document as secondary e-idence ha-e been met. These are2 3"4 there is proof of the original document’s e1ecution or e1istence8 394 there is proof of the cause of the original document’s una-ailability8 and 3%4 the offeror is in good faith.

Gabatan vs CA FACTS: 7espondent claimed ownership o-er a parcel of land and filed a case against petitioner for 7eco-ery of Property and $wnership and Possession. $n the other hand. *n the case at bar. aside from the testimonies of respondent’s witnesses. such as when the original is lost or the original is a public record. Under the best e-idence rule. . The former alleged that her mother. They alleged that being heirs of the brother and sister of the true owner. 0 party must first satisfactorily e1plain the loss of the best or primary e-idence before he can resort to secondary e-idence. 7espondent presented a certified true copy in due form while petitioners presented a copy which entries are handwritten. 0lthough the best e-idence rule admits of e1ceptions and there are instances where the presentation of secondary e-idence would be allowed. the witness attesting to the e1istence of the deed of absolute sale failed to state the whereabouts of the original. or a specific part thereof. petitioner contended that the respondent is not an heir of the owner of the said parcel of land. The respondent also passed the document as an admissible document relying on the stamped notation on the photocopy of the deed that it is a certified true 1ero1 copy and signed by the assessment officer. when admissible for any purpose. the 7ules of !ourt pro-ide that the record of public documents. is entitled to the possession and ownership of the property. in substance. 7egarding the authentication of public documents. *n order to established whether or not the respondent is entitled to the lot in :uestion. The attestation of the certifying officer must state. or by his deputy. HELD: (o. no e-idence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. ISSUE: +$( the deed of absolute sale is admissible. that the copy is a correct copy of the original. 0 party must first present to the court proof of loss or other satisfactory e1planation for non production of the original instrument. when the sub<ect of in:uiry is the contents of a document. *n addition. whether it was lost or whether it was recorded in any public office. as the case may be. both parties presented two conflicting birth certificates. they are entitled to the same. the basis for the presentation of secondary e-idence must still be established. being the sole heir of the true owner. a photocopy of a 'eed of 0bsolute Sale which appeared to be signed by the siblings and the heirs of the siblings of the true owner of the sub<ect lot was submitted and which the 7T! deemed as an affirmation or recognition by the siblings that the mother of the respondent is an heir of the true owner. may be e-idenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer ha-ing legal custody of the record.

the stamped certification of the assessor’s officer is insufficient authentication of the document since it did not state that it was a true copy from the original. . 5-en worse. no proof was presented by respondent that an original of the deed of absolute sale was registered or e1ists in the records of the local assessor’s office. the assessor who certified said photocopied document was not presented as a witness to attest that it was a true copy from the original.*n the case at bar. Furthermore.