EVIDENCE 1

Original Document Rule

Lorenzana v. Lelina
August 17, 2016 | J. Jardeleza

Petitioner(s): Anita U. Lorenzana

Respondent(s): Rodolfo Lelina

Doctrine: Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in
arriving at its judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document
when no objection was raised when it was formally offered

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): photocopy of the Deed, property of the wife levied to satisfy the husband’s debt
FACTS: Ambrosia, who was married to Aquilino, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over one half of an
undivided parcel of land in favor of her son, Rodolfo. He, along with three of his tenants were invited to
the Municipal Agrarian Office in 1996, where he was informed that the property was already owned by the
petitioner. Petitioner claims that she was the judgment creditor in a case she filed against Aquilino (the
respondent’s father). Roberto then filed a complaint for quieting of title and cancellation of documents.
The RTC and CA upheld Rodolfo’s claim on the strength of the Deed of Absolute Sale in his favor. Anita
argues that the Deed is inadmissible since it was a mere photocopy, not the original document.

HELD: Though the Deed would’ve normally been considered inadmissible pursuant to the Best Evidence
Rule, Anita’s failure to make a timely objection to the offer of the Deed means such objection is now
waived. For evidence to be excluded, it must be objected to at the time it is formally offered, with the
grounds specified. When a party fails to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were
offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived, even if the evidence is inadmissible.

FACTS
● Ambrosia Lelina executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over ½ an undivided parcel of land in favor of
her son, Rodolfo, who took possession of the property immediately after.
○ The tenants of the property, Fidel Labiano, Venancio Lagria, and Magdalena Lopez,
continued to deliver his share of the produce of the property as well as produce of the
remaining half of the land
● The Lelinas were invited to a conference where they were informed that the property was already
owned by Anita Lorenzana, by virtue of a Deed of Final Conveyance and a tax declaration in her
favor. This prompted Rodolfo to file an action for quieting of title against Anita.
○ Anita claimed that she acquired the land through a foreclosure sale in which she was the
highest bidder, as the judgment creditor for a sum of money she filed against Ambrosia’s
husband Aquilino. The redemption period having lapsed without a claim, the Deed was
issued in her favor.
● During trial, the subject property was found to have been included in the levy in Anita’s favor, and
that the property was registered in Ambrosia’s name. Anita claimed that she did not immediately
possess the property but only did so 18 years after the judgment in her favor.
○ Meanwhile, Rodolfo claimed that Godofredo Lorenzana possessed the other half of the
property and agreed that he’d hold Godofredo’s share of the produce of the lot in trust.
● The RTC ruled in Rodolfo’s favor, holding that since the lot was registered in Ambrosia’s name, it
could not be held to answer for Aquilino’s obligations. The CA upheld.
● Before the SC, Anita argued, among other things, that Rodolfo’s sole basis for ownership is the
Deed of Absolute Sale, which the original of which was not presented in court. Since only the
photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented, its contents are inadmissible for violating
the best evidence rule.

ISSUES + HELD
ISSUE #1: W/N Rodolfo is the owner of the ½ portion of the lot -> YES

Dizon | A2022
September 19, 2020
EVIDENCE 2
Original Document Rule

● The best evidence rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned
in Section 3, Rule 130.
● Generally, mere photocopies are inadmissible pursuant to the rule. Nevertheless, evidence not
objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its
judgment.
○ For evidence to be excluded, it must be objected to at the time it is formally offered, with
the grounds specified. When a party fails to interpose a timely objection to evidence at
the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived,
even if the evidence is inadmissible.
○ In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party
making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being
offered.
● Anita does not question the validity of the sale, but the admissibility of the deed. But since she did
not object to its being admitted, the Deed sufficiently proves Rodolfo’s ownership of the lot.
○ Even though the CA granted Rodolfo a portion of the lot beyond that stated in his
complaint, Anita is estopped from contesting this as she actively participated in the
proceedings below. Moreover, Rodolfo clarified the discrepancy, and stuck to his
assertion that ½ of the lot belongs to him.
○ In any case, what really defines a piece of land is not the area, calculated with more or
less certainty mentioned in the description, but its boundaries laid down, as enclosing the
land and indicating its limits. Where land is sold for a lump sum and not so much per unit
of measure or number, the boundaries of the land stated in the contract determine the
effects and scope of the sale, and not its area. [Art 1542 CC]
● Since Rodolfo was able to make a prima facie case as to his ownership of the land, it was on
Anita to rebut the presumption with preponderance of evidence. But she failed to do this. Her
claims were inconsistent.
○ In her Answer, she claims that she is the owner of the levied property by virtue of having
been the highest bidder in the public auction
○ During her testimony, however, she contradicted herself by claiming that the levied
property was awarded to her husband by her father-in-law, the brother of Ambrosia, and
that Aquilino was merely appointed as administrator of the land.
○ If the levied property was truly awarded to her by her father-in-law, she could have just
vindicated her claim in an independent action, and not participate in the public auction.
This is also inconsistent with her claim that Aquilino was the owner of the lot such that it
could be held answerable for his obligations.

ISSUE #2: W/N the Deed of Final Conveyance was correctly cancelled -> YES
● Rodolfo acquired the property through the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1975,while Anita
bought the levied property at the public auction held on September 29, 1977. Obviously, Rodolfo
already owned the property at the time Anita bought the levied property, and thus cannot be
levied and attached for the obligations of Aquilino in the collection case.
● As for the other half of the levied property, prior to its transfer to Rodolfo and Godofredo
Lorenzana, the levied property was paraphernal property of Ambrosia.
○ There are numerous TDs in her name, and even the Deed of Final Conveyance
presented by Anita show that Ambrosia is the registered owner of the lot. Even Anita
admitted in her Appellant’s Brief that Ambrosia is the owner of the lot.
● If at the time of the levy and sale by the sheriff, the property did not belong to the conjugal
partnership, but was paraphernal property, such property may not be answerable for the
obligations of the husband
○ Even assuming that the levied property belonged to the conjugal partnership of Ambrosia
and Aquilino, it may still not be levied upon because petitioner did not present proof that
the obligation redounded to the benefit of the family.
●

RULING: Prohibition granted.

Dizon | A2022
September 19, 2020
EVIDENCE 3
Original Document Rule

(remove this part if there are no separate opinions)

DISSENTING / CONCURRING / SEPARATE OPINION

Justice Writer
● Discussion of dissent. No need to restate the facts / issues, just put in the essential points that the
justice provided
● Highlight the differences between the separate opinion and the ponencia if possible

Dizon | A2022
September 19, 2020