DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND SPORTS, PETITIONER, VS. JULIA DEL ROSARIO, MARIA DEL ROSARIO, PACENCIA DEL ROSARIO, AND HEIRS OF SANTOS DEL ROSARIO, RESPONDENTS.

Del Rosario versus Department of Education, Culture and Sports

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports against Julia Del Rosario, Maria Del Rosario, Pacencia Del Rosario, and the Heirs of Santos Del Rosario. The respondents sued to recover possession of a registered parcel of land in Kaypombo, Santa Maria, Bulacan, which a public primary school had occupied for decades. The Department defended on the ground that the respondents' father, Isaias Del Rosario, had donated a portion of the land to the Municipality of Santa Maria as a school site in 1959. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of two rules every examinee must carry: the formal requisites of a donation of real property under Article 749 of the Civil Code, and the strict foundation required before secondary evidence of a lost document may be admitted under the Rules of Evidence.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 8, in Malolos. Because the land was registered in the respondents' names, the parties agreed to a reverse trial, with the Department presenting its evidence first to prove a valid donation. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the defense had proven the due execution of the deed of donation and its acceptance, as well as the loss of the deed, and gave greater weight to the testimony of the defense witnesses, notably Judge Eli Natividad, who had prepared and notarized the deed.

The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court and ordered the Department to vacate the premises. The appellate court held that the Department had failed to prove the existence and due execution of the deed of donation and of the municipal council resolution accepting it, and had failed to show a diligent search for the lost documents. The Department's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the Department came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

The property, with an area of 1,181 square meters, was registered in 1976 in the respondents' names under a transfer certificate of title. The Kaypombo Primary School Annex, under the Department, occupied a portion of it. The respondents claimed that the school occupied the land only through their tolerance and that of their predecessors, and that it refused to vacate despite valid demands.

The Department countered that in 1959 Isaias Del Rosario donated a portion of the property, about 650 square meters, to the Municipality of Santa Maria for school site purposes. Judge Eli Natividad, then a municipal councilor, prepared the deed of donation and later notarized it, and the municipal council passed a resolution accepting the donation. The school began occupying the donated site in 1962, during the donor's lifetime and without objection from him, and the school was later renamed the Isaias Del Rosario Primary School.

At trial, the deed of donation and the acceptance resolution could not be produced. The Department's witnesses testified that the copies furnished the municipal government and the schools division office were lost when those offices transferred to new buildings. The trial court believed the defense, but the Court of Appeals found the proof of loss insufficient, noting that no search was made in the office of the clerk of court or the National Library, where a notarized deed and the notarial register should have been kept.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the Department failed to prove the due execution or existence of the deed of donation and of the municipal council resolution accepting the donation, as well as the loss of those documents as the cause of their unavailability.

Applicable Provisions

Article 749 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy. The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor. If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.

This is the provision that governs the validity of the donation the Department claims, and its requirements are mandatory.

Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) xxx; (c) xxx; (d) xxx.

This is the best evidence rule, which bars proof of the deed's contents unless an exception applies.

Section 5 of Rule 130 provides:

SEC. 5. When 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.

This is the exception the Department invoked, and it prescribes the order in which secondary evidence may be offered.

Ruling

The Court denied the petition and held that the Court of Appeals did not err. On the formal requisites, the Court ruled that a donation of real property is a solemn contract, void without the formalities of Article 749. The deed must be a public document, and the acceptance, if made in a separate instrument, must also be a public document, with the donor notified in authentic form and the fact of notification noted in both instruments. Here, the Department did not even introduce the municipal council resolution in evidence, and there was no proof that the donee communicated its acceptance to the donor in writing, apart from the circumstance that the school was built during the donor's lifetime without objection. There was no showing that the required steps were noted in both instruments.

On the secondary evidence, the Court ruled that before a party may prove the contents of a lost document, he must first establish its existence and due execution, then prove its loss or destruction. The correct order of proof is existence, execution, loss, and contents. The testimony of Ricardo Nicolas showed only that he saw a document signed; he admitted he did not read it and had no personal knowledge of its contents. Vidal de Jesus never saw the deed and knew of the donation only from Judge Natividad. Judge Natividad's testimony established that he prepared and notarized the deed, but he could not account for the copies the law required him to record and furnish.

The Court stressed that the Notarial Law obliges a notary public to keep a notarial register recording all his official acts, and failure to perform this duty results in the revocation of his commission. Since no diligent search was made in the places where the deed and the notarial register would most likely be kept, the foundation for secondary evidence was not laid, and the contents of the deed could not be proven by testimony alone.

Doctrine

A donation of real property is a solemn contract and is void without the formalities of Article 749 of the Civil Code: the donation must be in a public document specifying the property and the charges, the acceptance must be in the same deed or in a separate public document, the acceptance must be made during the donor's lifetime, and if it is in a separate instrument, the donor must be notified in authentic form with that fact noted in both instruments.

Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original, except when the original is lost or destroyed or cannot be produced without bad faith on the part of the offeror. Before secondary evidence may be admitted, the offeror must prove the existence and due execution of the document and the cause of its unavailability, and must show a diligent search in the places where the document is most likely to be found. The order of proof is existence, execution, loss, and contents.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals, so the respondents won and the Department was ordered to vacate the premises.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a donation of real property is void without a public document and a proper acceptance under Article 749, and secondary evidence of a lost deed requires a diligent search first. Examiners use this case in Civil Law on the formal requisites of donations and in Remedial Law on the foundation for secondary evidence.