Skunac Corporation and Alfonso F. Enriquez vs. Roberto S.

Sylianteng and
Caesar S. Sylianteng, G.R. no. 205879, April 23, 2014.

Facts:

The case involves two parcels of land. The respondents base their claim of
ownership over the subject lots a Deed of Absolute Sale executed in their favor by their
mother, Emerenciana Sylianteng and further alleges that their mother acquired the lots
from the late Luis Pujalte through a Deed of Sale. A “duplicate carbon” original was
presented.

Petitioners claim that a certain Romeo Pujalte who was declared by the RTC of
Pasig City in Special Proceedings as the sole heir of Luis Pujalte, caused the
reconstitution of the Mother Title resulting to its cancellation and the issuance of TCT in
his favor. Romeo Pujalte then allegedly sold the lots to Skunac and Enriquez.

The respondents contend that they have a better right to the lots in question
because the transactions conveying the same to them preceded those claimed by the
petitioners as the source of the latter’s titles. That the petitioners could not be
considered as innocent purchasers in good faith and for value because they had prior
notice of the previous transactions as stated in the memorandum of encumbrances
annotated on the titles covering the subjects.

Petitioners for their part maintain that the respondents acquired the lots under
questionable circumstances appearing that there was no copy of the Deed of Sale. The
RTC favored the petitioners and the CA upheld the validity of the TCT in the name of
Emerenciana Sylianteng and TCT in the name of Roberto S. Sylianteng and Cesar S.
Sylianteng. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it. Hence,
this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the presentation of a duplicate/cabon original of a document is in

violation of the best evidence rule under the Rules of Court.

Ruling:

No. The best evidence rule is inapplicable to the present case. The said rules
apply only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the
issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is
likewise admissible without the need to account for the original. In the instant case,
what is being questioned is the authenticity and due execution of the subject deed of
sale. There is no real issue as to its content.

It is settled that a signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at

the same time as the original is known as a duplicate original and maybe introduced in
evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original. Section 4 (b), Rule
130 of the Rules of Court provides that “when a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals.”

In addition, evidence of the authenticity and due execution of the subject deed is
the fact that it was notarized. The notarization of a private document converts it into a
public document. Moreover, a notarized instrument is admissible in evidence without
further proof of its due execution, is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents,
and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. This presumption is affirmed if it is
beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.

In the present case, petitioners failed to present convincing evidence to prove

that the notarization of the subject deed was irregular as to strip it of its public
character.

Wherefore, petition is denied.

Capital Shoes Factory, LTD. vs. Traveler Kids, Inc.

G.R. No. 200065, September 24, 2014

Facts:

CSFL and TKI entered into an agreement, wherein TKI would import the shoes
and sandals made by CSFL from its China factory. It was their arrangement that TKI
would pay thirty (30%) percent of the purchase price of the goods by way of letters of
credit, and the balance of seventy (70%) percent by way telegraphic transfer, thirty
(30) days from the date of delivery of the goods. For the first three years, TKI was able
to pay its agreed purchase orders from CSFL. However, TKI defaulted and both verbal
and written demand letters were left unattended. CSFL then filed a complaint for
collection of sum of money and damages against TKI before the RTC.

After the presentation of its last witness, CSFL filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits
seeking the admission of the sales invoices and order slips. TKI objected to the
admission of the documents offered, contending that several of the sales invoices and
order slips should not be admitted because they were merely photocopies. The RTC
issued an Order admitting all the exhibits offered by CSFL. TKI filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied. RTC instead ruled that sales invoices and order slips
could be admitted because the duplicate originals of the invoices were already
sufficiently established by the testimony of CSFL’s officer and principal witness, Susan.

Instead of presenting evidence, TKI opted to file a petition for certiorari with a
prayer for TRO before the CA and the court partially granted the petition denying the
admission of sales invoices and order slips presented as evidence by CSFL.

CSFL filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the CA, thus, the
present case before the SC.

Issue:

Whether or not sales invoices and order slips, offered as evidence by the CSFL,
are duplicate originals and thus admissible as evidence.

Ruling:

Records reveal that Susan, CFSL’s principal witness, was able to satisfactory
explain that the documents in question were duplicate originals of invoices and order
slips, and not mere photocopies. The TSNs clearly show that Susan convincingly
explained that CSFL usually prepared two (2) copies of invoices for a particular
transaction, giving one copy to a client and retaining the other copy. The Court combed
through her testimony and found nothing that would indicate that the documents
offered were mere photocopies. The Court saw no reason why Section 4 9b), Rule 130
of the Rules of Court should not apply. At any rate, those exhibits can be admitted as
part of the testimony of Susan. Records of the case are ordered remanded to the trial
court for appropriate proceedings.