EVID Vda. de Corpus v. Brabangco

Vda. De Corpus v. Brabangco 59 O.G. 8262 (1963) Note: Mangaykay sa ko sa full text ani sa mga Official Gazette sa lib ha. Ako ra iupload ang pic if naa  Facts:  Tiburcia Brabangco is the declared owner of two parcels of land at Bugang, Alimodia, Iloilo, which the surviving widow and children of German Corpus alleged were sold by the former to Corpus in 1925 for P450, of which P300 was paid right upon the execution of the deed of sale in due form, as witnessed by Pablo and Bonifacio Villareal and acknowledged by Tiburcia before the Notary Public, Jose Tirador. The balance was also alleged to have been paid by Corpus to Tiburcia, as evidenced by a receipt. Corpus’ heirs claim that Corpus had been in possession of said lands from 1925 until his death. 

Six months after Corpus’ death, however, the defendants, with the aid and protection of policemen, entered the property, cut down and carried away 1,000 bamboos as well as 2 and ½ sacks of corn. Tiburcia denied having sold the land, alleging that she “simply accommodated and allowed the Corpuses to build their evacuation cottage when Japanese forces occupied the Philippines.”



Corpus’ heirs could not produce the deed of sale, however, which had allegedly been lost during the war. The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs and upheld the sale.

Issue: Were the heirs of Corpus able to establish the contents of the deed of sale despite the absence of the original document? Held: Yes. As the heirs alleged, the original deed of sale signed by Tiburcia was lost during the war. Corpus’ heirs made efforts to trace the whereabouts of Notary Public Jose Tirador to get a copy of the deed, but the latter’s children said that their parents were already dead and that their house in chich their father had kept his documents had burned down. The existence of the deed, however, was convincingly proven not only by the testimony of Corpus’ widow, and by the environmental facts disclosed by the evidence, but also by the disinterested testimony of Pablo Ableza, a municipal councilor who served as one of the witnesses in the execution of the sale. After proper proof of the due execution and delivery of the instrument, and its loss or destruction, oral evidence may be given of its contents by any person who signed the document or read it.

It is not necessary that the witness should be able to testify with verbal accuracy as to the contents of a lost instrument; it is sufficient that the contents are stated in substance. Witnesses cannot be expected to recite the content word for word. It is enough if intelligent witnesses have read the paper and can state substantially its contents and import with reasonable accuracy. Doctrine: After proper proof of the due execution and delivery of a written instrument, and its loss or destruction, oral evidence may be given of its contents by any person who signed the document or read it.