Heirs of Sabanpan vs Comorposa 408 scra 692

G.R. No. 152807. August 12, 2003

1. Give a brief fact of the case

A complaint for unlawful detainer with damages was filed by the petitioners against respondents
before the Santa Cruz, Davao del Sur Municipal Trial Court alleging that Marcos Saez was the lawful and
actual possessor of lots leaving his heirs- children and grandchildren the said property upon his death.
Accordingly, Francisco Cormoposa and his family was just allowed by Adolfo (son of Marcos Saez),
being a family friend, to occupy the land when the former had a problem of relocating upon
terminated from his job. The transfer was even witnessed by several people who also occupied Saez’
property without rental. Cormoposa, through petitioner’s tolerance, had his successors continued to
occupy the premises.

However, respondents denied the material allegations of the complaint and alleged that they entered
and occupied the premises in their own right as true, valid and lawful claimants, possessors and
owners of the said lot way back in 1960 and up to the present time; that they have acquired just and
valid ownership and possession of the premises by ordinary or extraordinary prescription, and that
the Regional Director of the DENR has already upheld their possession over the land in question when
it ruled that being the rightful claimants and possessors were entitled to the issuance of a title.

The MTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners.

The RTC on appeal, reversed and set aside the said decision.

II. Issues (Evidence)

1. Whether or not the pieces of evidence presented by the petitioners are admissible.
2. Whether or not the CENR Certification is a sham document because the signature of the CENR
Officer is a mere facsimile and cannot be admitted as evidence.

III. Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA upheld the right of respondents as claimants and possessors.

On the first issue, the presented pieces of evidence by the petitioners were a technical
description and a vicinity map drawn in accordance with a survey in 1936 which was
discredited by the CENR Certification that the contested lot has not yet been allocated to any
person when the survey was conducted. The testimonies of the petitioners’ witnesses alone
cannot prevail over respondents ’continued and uninterrupted possession of the subject lot
for a considerable length of time. Thus, the CA accorded on its decision weight of evidence
over admissibility of evidence.

On the second issue, generally, a facsimile transmission is not the functional equivalent of an
original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence. In the case of
Garvida v. Sales, the court alluded that a facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at
best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no
way of determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and
was originally signed by the party and his counsel. It may in fact, be a sham pleading. This was
disregarded by the CA because the facsimile defined in this case is the signature produced by
mechanical means even recognized in banking, financial, and business transactions. As to its
genuineness and authenticity, the CENR Certification was not denied by the CENR Officer and
was used as a reference by the DENR Regional Director. CA took cognizance of such as
admissible.

he testimony of petitioners' witnesses alone cannot prevail over respondents' continued and
uninterrupted possession of the subject lot for a considerable length of time.