SER

ISSUE
Whether or not the reconstructed
marriage license is admissible

TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, petitioner,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO
PILAPIL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS for
the Province of Camarines Sur, and
JUAN F. TRIVINO as publisher of
"Balalong,"

[G.R. No.
2003]

150905. September

23,

CITIBANK,
N.A.
MASTERCARD, petitioner, vs. EFREN S.
TEODORO, respondent.

RULING
Yes. The Petition is meritorious. Petitioner's marriage is
valid, but respondents adoption has not been
sufficiently established.
"It is settled that if the original writing has been lost or
destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof
of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability,
its contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its
contents in some authentic document, or by
recollection of witnesses."13 Upon a showing that the
document was duly executed and subsequently lost,
without any bad faith on the part of the offeror,
secondary evidence may be adduced to prove its
contents.14

Whether the photocopies of the

sales invoices or charge slips,
marked as Exhibits F to F-4, were
competent proofs of the obligations
of respondent.

In the present case, due execution was established by

the testimonies of Adela Pilapil, who was present during
the marriage ceremony, and of petitioner herself as a
party to the event. The subsequent loss was shown by
the testimony and the affidavit of the officiating priest,
Monsignor Yllana, as well as by petitioner's own
declaration in court. These are relevant, competent
and admissible evidence. Since the due execution and
the loss of the marriage contract were clearly shown by
the evidence presented, secondary evidence
testimonial and documentary may be admitted to
prove the fact of marriage.
No. The original copies of the sales invoices are
the
best
evidence
to
prove
the
alleged
obligation. Photocopies thereof are mere secondary
evidence. As such, they are inadmissible because
petitioner, as the offeror, failed to prove any of the
exceptions provided under Section 3[13] of Rule 130 of

August 19,

Page

CASE
G.R. No. 135216
1999

the Rules of Court, as well s the conditions of their

admissibility. Because of the inadmissibility of the
photocopies in the absence of the originals,
respondents obligation was not established.
The loss of the originals and reasonable diligence in the
search for them were conditions that were not met,
because the sales invoices might have been found by
Equitable. Hernandez, testifying that he had requested
the originals from Equitable, failed to show that he had
subsequently followed up the request
Yes.
If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and
no other copy is available, the will can not be
probated because the best and only evidence is the
handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary
that there be a comparison between sample
handwritten statements of the testator and the
handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy
of the holographic will may be allowed because
comparison can be made with the standard writings of
the testator.
Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509,
(footnote) : "Perhaps it may be proved by a
photographic
or
photostatic
copy.
Even
a
mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar
means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the
handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and
tested before the probate court," Evidently, the
photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed
holographic will may be admitted because then the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can
be determined by the probate court

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO

APPROVE THE WILL OF RICARDO B.
BONILLA
deceased,
MARCELA
RODELAS, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL., oppositorsappellees, ATTY.
LORENZO
SUMULONG, intervenor.

Whether a holographic will which

was lost or cannot be found can be
proved by means of a photostatic
copy

Page

G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982

No. The petition has no merit.

The only actual rule that the term "best evidence"
denotes is the rule requiring that the original of a writing
must, as a general proposition, be produced17 and
secondary evidence of its contents is not admissible
except where the original cannot be had.
Secondary evidence of the contents of a written
instrument or document refers to evidence other than
the original instrument or document itself.18 A party
may present secondary evidence of the contents of a
writing not only when the original is lost or destroyed,
but also when it is in the custody or under the control of
the adverse party. In either instance, however, certain
explanations must be given before a party can resort
to secondary evidence.
The trial court correctly allowed the presentation of the
photocopied documents in question as secondary
evidence. Any suggestion that BF failed to lay the
required basis for presenting the photocopies of
Progress Billing Nos. 14 to 19 instead of their originals has
to be dismissed. The orig documents were at the hands
of ESHRI Four factual premises are readily deducible
from the above exchanges, to wit: (1) the existence of
the original documents which ESHRI had possession of;
(2) a request was made on ESHRI to produce the
documents; (3) ESHRI was afforded sufficient time to
produce them; and (4) ESHRI was not inclined to
produce them.
Sec. 6 of Rule 130,:
SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse
party's custody or control. - If the document is in
the custody or under control of the adverse
party, he must have reasonable notice to
produce it. If after such notice and after

G.R. No. 145873

June 27, 2008
CYNTHIA
ROXAS-DEL
CASTILLO, petitioner,
vs.
BF
CORPORATION, respondent.

Whether or not the [CA] committed

grave abuse of discretion in
disregarding issues of law raised by
petitioners
in
their
appeal
[particularly in admitting in evidence
photocopies of Progress Billing Nos.
14 to 19, PMIs and WVOs].

Page

G.R. No. 145842

June 27, 2008
EDSA
SHANGRI-LA
HOTEL
AND RESORT,
INC.,
RUFO
B.
COLAYCO, RUFINO L. SAMANIEGO,
KUOK KHOON CHEN, and KUOK
KHOON TSEN, petitioners, vs. BF
CORPORATION, respondent.

satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to

produce the document, secondary evidence
may be presented as in the case of loss.

Heirs of TEOFILO GABATAN vs. Hon.

COURT OF APPEALS and LOURDES
EVERO PACANA, Respondents

WON a photocopy of the deed of

sale is admissible as secondary
evidence

No.
After a close scrutiny of the said photocopy of the
Deed of Absolute Sale, the SC did not uphold the
admissibility of the same.
In the case at bar, a perusal of the transcript of the
testimony of Felicisima Nagac Pacana (who identified
the photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale) plainly
shows that she gave no testimony regarding the
whereabouts of the original, whether it was lost or
whether it was recorded in any public office.
There is an ostensible attempt to pass off Exhibit H as an
admissible public document. For this, respondent relied
on the stamped notation on the photocopy of the
deed that it is a certified true xerox copy and said
notation was signed by a certain Honesto P. Velez, Sr.,
Assessment Officer, who seems to be an officer in the
local assessors office. Regarding the authentication of
public documents, the Rules of Court 38 provide that the
record of public documents, when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having
legal custody of the record, or by his deputy.39 The
attestation of the certifying officer must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may
be.40

March 13,

Page

G.R. No. 150206

2009