Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    Republic of The Philippines V. Jose Lubis Masongsong and JUANITO LUBIS MASONGSONG, G.R. No. 162846 September 22, 2005 Facts

    Uploaded by

    WARLYN DUMO
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on how to prove the loss or destruction of an original document. Under Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the original document is unavailable due to loss or destruction without bad faith, the offeror may prove its contents by a copy, recital in an authentic document, or witness testimony, in that order. The offeror need only prove a reasonable probability of loss through a bona fide and diligent search. However, in this case, the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the loss or destruction of Decree No. 639024, as they did not present a certified copy of the decree or decision and did not show that related

    Copyright:

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

    Republic of The Philippines V. Jose Lubis Masongsong and JUANITO LUBIS MASONGSONG, G.R. No. 162846 September 22, 2005 Facts

    Uploaded by

    WARLYN DUMO
    77 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on how to prove the loss or destruction of an original document. Under Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the original document is unavailable due to loss or destruction without bad faith, the offeror may prove its contents by a copy, recital in an authentic document, or witness testimony, in that order. The offeror need only prove a reasonable probability of loss through a bona fide and diligent search. However, in this case, the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the loss or destruction of Decree No. 639024, as they did not present a certified copy of the decree or decision and did not show that related

    Original Title

    14. REPUBLIC v. MASONGONG

    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 Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on how to prove the loss or destruction of an original document. Under Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the original document is unavailable due to loss or destruction without bad faith, the offeror may prove its contents by a copy, recital in an authentic document, or witness testimony, in that order. The offeror need only prove a reasonable probability of loss through a bona fide and diligent search. However, in this case, the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the loss or destruction of Decree No. 639024, as they did not present a certified copy of the decree or decision and did not show that related

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views2 pages

    Republic of The Philippines V. Jose Lubis Masongsong and JUANITO LUBIS MASONGSONG, G.R. No. 162846 September 22, 2005 Facts

    Uploaded by

    WARLYN DUMO
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on how to prove the loss or destruction of an original document. Under Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the original document is unavailable due to loss or destruction without bad faith, the offeror may prove its contents by a copy, recital in an authentic document, or witness testimony, in that order. The offeror need only prove a reasonable probability of loss through a bona fide and diligent search. However, in this case, the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the loss or destruction of Decree No. 639024, as they did not present a certified copy of the decree or decision and did not show that related

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

    JOSE LUBIS MASONGSONG and


    JUANITO LUBIS MASONGSONG, G.R. No. 162846 September 22, 2005

    FACTS:
    Jose Lubis Masongsong and his brother, Juanito Lubis Masongsong, filed a
    petition in the RTC of Lipa City, for the declaration of nullity of Decree No.
    639024 purportedly issued in favor of Serapio3 Lubis on June 21, 1937 in LRC
    Cadastral Record No. 1296, and that the Administrator of the Land
    Registration Authority (LRA) be ordered to issue a new decree in favor of the
    petitioners.

    The petitioners discovered that the Bureau of Lands had no existing or


    salvaged records of Decree No. 639024. They asserted that despite earnest
    efforts, Decree No. 639024 could no longer be located, and is as such
    presumed to have been lost or destroyed during World War II.

    ISSUE:
    How will one prove the loss or destruction of an original document?

    HELD:
    Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that:

    Section 5. When the 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.

    The offeror is not obliged to prove the loss or destruction of the original
    document beyond all possibility, as it is enough to prove a reasonable
    probability of such loss.22 This may be done by a bona fide and diligent search,
    fruitlessly made in places where it is likely to be found. 23 Destruction signifies
    that the original no longer exists, while a loss signifies merely that it cannot be
    discovered.24 The term execution, on the other hand, means the
    accomplishment of a thing; the completion of an act or instrument; the
    fulfillment of an undertaking.25

    The respondents adduced preponderant evidence to prove the existence of


    Decree No. 639024.26 A copy of the decree was filed with the Land Registration
    Commission (now the LRA), as evidenced by Record Book of Decrees,27 but the
    same was not found in the LRA Vault Section, Docket Division. The
    respondents failed to adduce evidence that the decision of the court and the
    decree were in favor of Serapio Lubis, and failed to present a certified copy of
    the LRA decision.
    The respondents even failed to adduce in evidence the original or certified true
    copy of the court’s decision in favor of Serapio Lubis. They could have secured
    a copy of the decision from the court or from the LRA, but failed to do so.
    There is even no showing that the court records in LRC Case No. 24 and the
    copy of the decision transmitted to the Land Registration Commission (now the
    LRA) were missing, lost or destroyed.

    You might also like