542 Phil. 124
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
[Respondents] and [petitioners] are the heirs of the late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos, being their grandmother. The late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos had four (4) children, namely: Adriano Llemos, Santiago Llemos, Domingo Llemos, who were the predecessors-in-interest of [respondents], and Felipe Llemos, who was the predecessor-in-interest of herein [petitioners].On February 29, 1996, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, then the defendants. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:
During her lifetime, the late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos acquired a parcel of land described as Lot No. 2059, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 38564, which all the parties presently occupy.
x x x x
On November 5, 1964, the Register of Deeds of Dagupan, Pangasinan, cancelled Original Certificate of Title No. 38564 (Exhibit “B”) and issued a new one, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15632 (Exhibit “D”) in the name of Felipe Llemos, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale thumb marked by Saturnina Salvatin Llemos conveying said property to Felipe Llemos, herein [petitioners’] predecessor-in-interest, for a consideration of P200.00 (Exhibit “C”).
Sometime in 1991, Jovita Llemos Laca, one of the [respondents], decided to improve her residential house on said parcel of land. Hence, she borrowed the title of the property from one of the [petitioners], Felisa Llemos, for purposes of securing a building permit. It was on such instance that [respondents] discovered that the title of the property was already in the name of herein [petitioners].
On August 10, 1992, [respondents] filed the instant action for Declaration of Nullity of said Transfer Certificate [of] Title No. 15632 and for damages. The complaint, was amended on October 24, 1995 to include additional plaintiffs who are likewise heirs of Saturnina Salvatin Llemos.
In their Answer, [petitioners] alleged that the late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos conveyed to their father, the late Felipe Llemos, the subject parcel of land, thus, said property is their inheritance from their father.
During the pre-trial conference, the parties failed to settle their differences. Hence, trial proceeded.
x x x x[2]
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint with costs against plaintiffs.The RTC held that although respondent Eusebia Ll. Fernandez (Eusebia) testified that Saturnina was her grandmother and that she died in 1938, Eusebia did not testify on the fact of death of Saturnina from personal knowledge; that the respondents’ cause of action heavily rests on the Certificate of Death[4] only and no other evidence; that since at the time Saturnina died, there was already an existing public registry by virtue of Act 3753, hence, no other entity, not even the Catholic Church, had the authority to issue a certificate regarding the fact of death which can qualify as a public document; that, for these reasons, the Certificate of Death is a private document and must be authenticated to be admissible as evidence; that respondents failed to notarize or otherwise authenticate the same and, hence, the facts stated therein are hearsay; and finally, since the deed in question was registered as early as 1964, more than 20 years had already lapsed, hence, the respondents’ cause of action had already prescribed at the time of the filing of their Complaint on August 10, 1992.
There is no pronouncement as to damages and attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.[3]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated February 29, 1996 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 41, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is entered as follows:The CA held that the entries in the Registry Book of St. John Metropolitan Cathedral in Dagupan City may be considered as entries made in the course of business under then Section 37 of Rule 130,[6] which is an exception to the hearsay rule; that Saturnina passed away on March 12, 1938 as stated by the Book of the Dead of the Catholic Church; that, for this reason, the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed on November 5, 1964 is invalid, as there could not possibly be a meeting of the minds between a dead person and a living one; that all the parties in the instant suit are presently occupying the property in question; and finally, that the petitioners cannot invoke the indefeasibility of title since it may still be attacked even beyond the one year period reckoned from the date of its issuance on the ground of fraud.No pronouncement as to costs.
- The Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit “3”) is hereby declared NULL and VOID;
- The parties are declared co-owners of the subject parcel of land owned by the late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos, as previously covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 38564;
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15632 is ordered cancelled;
SO ORDERED.[5]
WHETHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAD PRESCRIBED OR THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF LACHES.[7]The issue on prescription deserves scant consideration. The Court has recently affirmed the rule that an action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject of the acts.[9] It is not disputed that respondents (plaintiffs), including petitioners (defendants), presently occupy the property in question.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT TO THE CERTIFICATE OF DEATH ISSUED BY THE CHURCH WHEN THE REGISTER WAS NEVER PRESENTED NOR THE CLERK WHO PREPARED THE SAME WAS PRESENTED FOR ITS AUTHENTICATION.[8]
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:As aptly pointed out by the RTC, respondents failed to present a witness to prove the due execution and authenticity of the Certificate of Death.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.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
SEC. 37. Entries in the course of business. - Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, outside of the Philippines or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.[17]The CA committed a reversible error in considering said evidence.
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. – When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.[18]Under Section 3, Rule 130, Rules of Court, the original document must be produced and no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
x x x xNone of the exceptions are attendant in the present case. The Register of Dead is in the custody of St. John Metropolitan Cathedral but respondents failed to show that it presented the Certificate of Death because the Register of Dead cannot be produced in court. There is no showing that the Register of Dead consists of numerous documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from it is only the general result of the whole. Further, respondents failed to present an authentic document that recites the contents of the Register of Dead. As earlier held, the Certificate of Death is a private document and not a public document; and respondents failed to prove its authenticity by their failure to present any witness to testify on the due execution and genuineness of the signature of Fr. Natividad, pursuant to Section 20, Rule 132.
a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
[E]xecuted with all the formalities of law and ratified by a notary public who attested that the vendor Saturnina Salvatin appeared before him and acknowledged her deed to be her free act and deed. It was executed in the presence of two witnesses. Maria Llemos Jimenez likewise testified that the deed was properly executed for valuable consideration at the time.[19]A notarized document is executed to lend truth to the statements contained therein and to the authenticity of the signatures. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.[20]