Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Ong Ching Po VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Gela Bea Barrios
    The document discusses the admissibility of secondary evidence when original documents are lost or destroyed. It states that the proponent must first establish the former existence of the document before introducing secondary evidence. The correct order of proof is existence, execution, loss, then contents, though a court has discretion to change the order if necessary. Due execution of a document can be established by those who executed it, witnessed its execution or acknowledgment, or were told about it by parties to the instrument.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ong Ching Po VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Gela Bea Barrios
    27 views1 page
    The document discusses the admissibility of secondary evidence when original documents are lost or destroyed. It states that the proponent must first establish the former existence of the document before introducing secondary evidence. The correct order of proof is existence, execution, loss, then contents, though a court has discretion to change the order if necessary. Due execution of a document can be established by those who executed it, witnessed its execution or acknowledgment, or were told about it by parties to the instrument.

    Original Description:

    ONG CHING PO VS CA

    Original Title

    ONG CHING PO VS CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the admissibility of secondary evidence when original documents are lost or destroyed. It states that the proponent must first establish the former existence of the document before introducing secondary evidence. The correct order of proof is existence, execution, loss, then contents, though a court has discretion to change the order if necessary. Due execution of a document can be established by those who executed it, witnessed its execution or acknowledgment, or were told about it by parties to the instrument.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views1 page

    Ong Ching Po VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Gela Bea Barrios
    The document discusses the admissibility of secondary evidence when original documents are lost or destroyed. It states that the proponent must first establish the former existence of the document before introducing secondary evidence. The correct order of proof is existence, execution, loss, then contents, though a court has discretion to change the order if necessary. Due execution of a document can be established by those who executed it, witnessed its execution or acknowledgment, or were told about it by parties to the instrument.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ONG CHING PO VS CA - Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed.

    But prior
    to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the document. The correct
    order of proof is as follows: existence; execution; loss; contents. This order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the
    court.

    The due execution of the document may be established by the person or persons who executed it; by the person before whom
    its execution was acknowledged; or by any person who was present and saw it executed or who after its execution, saw it and
    recognized the signatures; or by a person to whom the parties to the instrument had previously confessed the execution thereof
    (De Vera v. Aguilar, supra).

    You might also like