Heirs of Cardenas vs The Christian and Missionary
Alliance Churches of The Philippines, Inc. Rules on Evidence before any private document offered
(CAMACOP)
G.R. No. 222614, March 20, 2019
Digest by: Jelaine Añides
Facts: The Heirs of Cardenas alleged in their Complaint
that they were the heirs of Spouses Pastora and
Eustaquio Cardes registered owners who are the
registers owners of Lot 90 located in Midsayap Cotabato.
The said property was adjacent to the lot owned by
CAMACOP where its church is located and constructed.
Sometime in 1962, CAMACOP has been unlawfully
occupying their property for their church activities.
Hence, the Heirs of Spouses Cardenas filed a Complaint
for Recovery of Possession against CAMACOP.
CAMACOP countered that they had lawfully purchased it
from its registered owners [(referring to Pastora)], who
surrendered the owner's duplicate copy to the
representative of the church.
To prove their claim, CAMACOP presented several
documents such as letters of Atty. Calud to the DANR
Secretary and sworn affidavits submitted to the director
of lands. mentioning that copies of the purported Deed
of Sale were supposedly transmitted to the DENR.
CAMACOP alleged that there were 4 original copies of
the Deed of Sale but all of them were submitted by their
counsel, Atty. Calud, to the DENR.
Since they could no longer produce the original copies
of the Deed of Sale because all had been supposedly
lost, CAMACOP had to resort to the presentation of
secondary evidence to prove the existence of this Deed
of Sale.
Most of these documents were merely photocopies and
were not properly authenticated. Hence, they presented
Reo Repollo, a member of CAMACOP, who testified to
the existence of the Deed of Sale between Spouses Petra
and Estaquio Cardenas and CAMACOP.
Issue: Whether or not the due execution and authenticity
of the private documents were duly proven? NO.
Held: According to Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised
as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution
and authenticity must be proved either by (a) anyone
who saw the document executed or written or (b) by
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.
In the instant case, it is readily admitted that Repollo did
not personally witness the execution of any of the
documents he identified. In fact, Repollo testified that
these documents were merely turned over to him by his
mother.38 Nor was Repollo knowledgeable as to the
genuineness of the signatures or handwritings found in
the documents. Truth be told, Repollo had no
participation and knowledge whatsoever as to the
preparation, execution, and authenticity of the
documents he identified. Otherwise stated, Repollo was
totally incompetent to present and testify on these
documents. Hence, without proper identification and
authentication, the documentary evidence of CAMACOP
should not have been admitted into evidence by the
RTC.
Thus, without any copy of the purported Deed of Sale
and any authentic document containing a recital of the
contents of the purported Deed of Sale, CAMACOP
should have provided a credible, convincing witness to
prove the existence and contents of the purported Deed
of Sale.
No such witness was provided by CAMACOP.