22. G.R. No.

170604               September 2, 2013

HEIRS OF MARGARITA PRODON, PETITIONERS, vs. HEIRS OF MAXIMO S.
ALVAREZ AND VALENTINA CLAVE, REPRESENTED BY REV. MAXIMO
ALVAREZ, JR., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:
The heirs of Alvarez filed an action for quieting of title over the land inherited
from their parents alleging that a deed of sale with right to repurchase claimed
by Prodon executed by their late father was inexistent. They averred that the
owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT could not be located but the entry made
thereon was maliciously done by Prodon.

Prodon claimed that she had become the absolute owner of the property as
confirmed by the Notary Public Eliseo Razon and by the Primary Entry Book of
the Register of Deeds of Manila. The copy of the deed of sale with right to
repurchase could not be found in the files of the Register of Deeds of Manila.

The heirs of Alvarez countered that due to number of very serious ailments of
their father as proved by his medical history, it is highly improbable for him to
travel from Manila to Bulacan to negotiate and consummate the sale on the
date that Prodon alleged to be the date of its execution.

ISSUE: WON the Best Evidence Rule is applicable.

HELD: No, the best evidence rule is not applicable.

The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving the terms of a written
document the original of the document must be produced in court to ensure
that the exact contents of a writing are brought before the court and to act as
an insurance against fraud. The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the
terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced
concerns external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the
writing, without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be
invoked.

In the case, the principal issue raised was whether or not the deed of sale with
right to repurchase had really existed. Hence, the Best Evidence rule is not
applicable.