Hutchison v. Buscas G.R. No.

158554, May 26, 2005

Facts: On October 1, 1987, the Spouses Ronald and Valentine Hutchison bought from V.A. Development
Enterprises, Inc. a land in San Juan, Lubao, Pampanga, and occupied said land after a title was issued in their
names. On August 2, 1989, Juanita Arrastia, the owner of the adjacent lot, sold a portion of her land to Enrique
Buscas, as evidenced by a Quitclaim Deed in favor of Buscas. Though Buscas occupied said land, he failed to
register his portion in his name and title remained in the name of Arrastia.

On January 10, 1995, Buscas commissioned geodetic engineer Narciso Manansala to survey his property. The
survey revealed that a portion of Buscas land was occupied the Sps. Hutchison. Despite a demand latter to vacate
sent to the Sps. Hutchison, however, the latter refused and insisted that the area was part of their land. A
complaint for accion reinvindicatoria was filed. Buscas presented in evidence the Quitclaim Deed to prove his title
over the disputed area, as well as testified on the survey conducted by Manansala. Another geodetic engineer
confirmed the first survey with a verification plan and report which had been made as directed by the MTC judge
in the previous unlawful detainer case which had been dismissed.

Issue: Was the Quitclaim Deed sufficient to prove Buscas ownership of the disputed area?

Held: No. The law requires that the party who alleges a fact and substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue
has the burden of proving it. Art. 434 of the New Civil Code provides that “to successfully maintain an action to
recover the ownership of a real proeprty, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two things: first,
the identity of the land claimed, and; second, his title thereto.” In this case, Buscas failed to establish both
requirements.

A cursory reading of the Quitclaim Deed reveals that it specified only the extent of the area sold. Annex “A” of the
Deed, where the entire lot of Arrastia was particularly described and where the specific portion of the property
sold to Buscas was marked, was not presented at the trial. The Deed itself failed to mention the metes and bounds
of the land subject of the sale. Thefore, it cannot be successfully used to identify the area Buscas was claiming and
prove his ownership thereof. The presentation of the Annex “A” is essential as what defines a piece of land is not
the size mentioned in the instrument but the boundaries thereof which enclose the land and indicate its exact
limits. The surveys cannot be given evidentiary weight to prove the identity of the land sold to Buscas and his
ownership thereof, as they merely relied on the self-serving statement of Buscas that he owns the portion of the
lot adjacent to that of the Sps. Hutchison.

Moreover, the rules on evidence provide that where the contents of the document are the facts in issue, the best
evidence is the instrument itself. Here, the identity of the land claimed and Buscas’ ownership thereof are the very
facts in issue. The best evidence to prove such is the Quitclaim Deed and its Annex “A” where Buscas derives his
title and where the land from which he purchased a part was described with particularity, indicating the metes and
bounds thereof. Failure to adduce Annex “A” in evidence or produce secondary evidence after proof of the loss of
the former is fatal to his cause.

Doctrine: The rules on evidence provide that where the contents of the document are the facts in issue, the best
evidence is the instrument itself. Failure to adduce such in evidence or to produce secondary evidence upon proof
of loss or destruction of the former is fatal to the cause of action.