Virgilio Dycoco vs.

Adelaida Orina
G.R. No. 184843, July 30, 2010

Facts:
Virgilio Dycoco(Dycoco) is alleged to have executed on October 9,1995 a Real
Estate Mortgage with Special Power to sell Mortgaged Property without judicial
proceedings (REM) in favor of respondent Adelaida Orina (Adelaida), covering a
parcel of land located in Sta. Cruz, Manila and registered under Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 105730 in Dycocos name. The REM was notarized on
even date by the Notary Public. Dycocos attorneys-in-fact claimed that Dycocos
signature on the REM was forged, to prove which they presented various
documents that Dycoco was working in the United States of America as a licensed
physician on the alleged date of execution of the REM. They also presented
Dycocos U.S. Passport, personal checks, Special Power of Attorney and Affidavit;
and a Certification from the Clerk of Court of RTC Manila that the office does not
possess a copy of REM, Notary Public Sinaguinan having not submitted her
notarial report for October 1995. Respondents Adelaida et al., maintaining the
due execution of the REM, presented Evelyn who testified on a photocopy of
REM. The RTC dismissed Dycocos complaint.The Court of Appleals affirmed the
trial courts dismissal of Dycocos complaint.

Issue:
WON the REM is a public document.

Held:
NO. The REM is not a public document.

Documents acknowledge before a notary public, except last wills and testaments,
are public documents. Since the subject REM was not properly notarized, since
the name of the person who personally appeared before the notary public is not
stated, it is subject to the requirement of proof for private documents under
Section 20, Rule 132, which provides:

Sec.20. Proof of private document. Before any private document offered as

authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either:
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker.
It was thus incumbent upon Adelaida to prove that Dycocos signature is
genuine. As stated earlier, a mere photocopy of the REM was presented. It is
axiomatic that when genuineness of the signatures on a document is sought to
be proved or disproved through comparison of standard signatures with
questioned signature, the original thereof must be presented.Why
respondents did not present the original, they did not explain. Why did they
not present Adelaida, who must have been present at the execution of REM as
her purported signature appears thereon,or the notary public or any other
witnesses.
The People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Tandoy y Lim
G.R. No. 80505, December 4,1990

Facts:
The Regional Trial of Makati convicted Mario Tandoy (Tandoy) of the crime of
violation of Art.II, Sec.4 of Rep.Act No. 6425 known as Dangerous Drug Act of
1972, an appeal before this court was made.

On the evidence of the prosecution as summarized: On May 27,1986, Lt.

Salido,Jr. of the Makati Police Station dispatched various police officers
including Detective Pablo Singayan who posed as the buyer. He stood alone
near the store waiting for any pusher to approach. The members of the team
strategically positioned themselves. Soon, three men approached
Singayan.One of them was the accused appellant, who offered the Marijuana
leaves.The exchange was made and the bills were marked as ANU (Anti-
Narcotic Unit. The team arrested Tandoy. Upon arraignment, Tandoy entered
a plea of not guilty. The trial court gave more credence to the statements of
the arresting officers.

Issue:
WON the best evidence rule is applicable upon the admission of the xerox
copy of the marked P10.00 bill.

Held:
The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are
the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such
document was actually executed,or exists or in the circumstances relevant to
or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible.

Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for
the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents, other
substitutionary evidence like a Xerox copy thereof, is therefore admissible
without the need of accounting for the original.