Two related families were fighting over land left by their ascendants. Both asserted ownership and presented their separate titles to the same land. The eventual petitioners in the Supreme Court presented a photocopy of their title. They could not present the original and claimed it may have been gutted by fire as certified by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.

The respondents, however, presented the original of their title. But when the case was earlier heard by the trial court, it ruled in favor of the petitioners, despite their presentation of a mere photocopy of their title.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court. It sided with the party that had the original copy of their title. Naturally, the family with the photocopy went up to the Supreme Court to seek a reversal of the appellate court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court, however, did not side with them, ruling: “The main evidence submitted by the petitioners to prove Maria’s ownership is the photocopy of the first page of TCT No. 262412 under her name. Under the Rules on Evidence, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

“Further, 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 or her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

“In Lee v. People, the Court elucidated: ‘The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original without bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents; (b) the proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places.’

“It has been held that where the missing document is the foundation of the action, more strictness in proof is required than where the document is only collaterally involved. Here, the respondents have repeatedly questioned the admissibility of the photocopy of the first page of TCT No. 262412. While the alleged loss of the original of TCT No. 262412 may have been supported by the Certification dated 6 December 2013 from the RD of Quezon City, still, the... testimonies failed to raise any reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the owner’s duplicate original copy of TCT No. 262412.

“There is also no showing that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper places. Thus, the RTC erred in admitting it as evidence. Even assuming that admission was proper, we stress that admissibility should not be equated with probative value or weight of evidence.

“In Mancol Jr. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, the Court explained: ‘The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.’ The admissibility of a particular item of evidence has to do with whether it meets various tests by which its reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other evidence admitted in the case in arriving at a decision as to the truth.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court. It sided with the party that had the original copy of their title.

“The weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact, but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case. ‘Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.’”

The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from Conrado Nuñez Jr. et al. v. Spouses Oscar Nuñez et al. (G.R. No. 267108, 5 February 2025).