This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Even if we base respondent's petition on Sec. 2(f) of R.A. No. 26 as the Court of Appeals did, and as respondent now argues in this petition, reconstitution would still not issue. Resort to other documents in Sec. 2(f) must be employed only when the documents earlier referred to in Secs. 2(a) to (e) do not avail. Respondent reasons that she can only rely on Sec. 2(f) because the required documents enumerated in Secs. 2(a) to (e) may only be procured from the Register of Deeds which had already certified that all such records were burned or destroyed in the last World War. She also adds that secondary evidence may now be presented in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Said section provides that 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 order of presentation of presentation of secondary evidence under Sec. 5, Rule 130 is existence, execution, loss, contents. The order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court.[30] | |||||