When secondary evidence is admissible

Dear Atty. Maan,

My grandfather purchased two parcels of land from his good friend while he was alive. The heirs of his friend argued that they were the original owners of the property and that the sale to my grandfather had not occurred.

They contended that their father, the seller, was illiterate and bedridden during the initial sale, making it seemingly impossible. Since we cannot find the original at the moment, they claim that the title in our possession was forged.

Is there a way for us to prove the existence of the original contract?

Allan

Dear Allan,

“The best evidence rule requires that the original document be produced whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry, except in certain limited cases laid down in Section 3 of Rule 130.” Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez, explained:

The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact contents of a writing are brought before the court, considering that (a) the precision in presenting to the court the exact words of the writing is of more than average importance, particularly as respects operative or dispositive instruments, such as deeds, wills and contracts, because a slight variation in words may mean a great difference in rights; (b) there is a substantial hazard of inaccuracy in the human process of making a copy by handwriting or typewriting; and (c) as respects oral testimony purporting to give from memory the terms of a writing, there is a special risk of error, greater than in the case of attempts at describing other situations generally.

However, as on your case where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the original. In the instant case, what is being questioned is the authenticity and due execution of the subject deed of sale. There is no real issue as to its contents.

Evidently, neither the contents of the document nor the terms of the writing are at issue. As such, the CA correctly held that the best evidence rule does not apply and that secondary evidence, such as the instant certified true copy, may be admitted even without accounting for the original.

As such, the parties may prove the existence of a perfected or performed contract of sale through any competent evidence available, be it an original deed, a copy thereof, a memorandum, or even testimony on the prior, subsequent, and contemporaneous acts of the parties.

Hope this helps.

Atty. Mary Antonnette Baudi