Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 135216 August 19, 1999
TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, as S!"#a$ A%&#'#st(at(#) o* t+! ,'t!stat! Estat! o* D!"!as!% A$*(!%o E. Ja"o-, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O. APPEA/S, PEDRO P,/AP,/, T0E REG,STER O. DEEDS *o( t+! P(o1#'"! o* Ca&a(#'!s Su(, a'% JUAN ..
TR,V,NO as u-$#s+!( o* 2Ba$a$o'g,2 respondents.
PANGAN,BAN, J.:
The contents of a docuent a! be proven b! copetent evidence other than the docuent itself, provided that the offeror
establishes its due e"ecution and its subse#uent loss or destruction. $ccordin%l!, the fact of arria%e a! be sho&n b! e"trinsic
evidence other than the arria%e contract.
The Case
'efore us is a Petition for Revie& under Rule () of the Rules of *ourt, assailin% the Decision of the *ourt of $ppeals
+
,*$- dated
.anuar! +), +//0, and its Resolution dated $u%ust 1(, +//0, den!in% petitioner2s Motion for Reconsideration.
The dispositive part of the *$ Decision reads3
4H5R56OR5, findin% no reversible error in the decision appealed fro it bein% ore consistent &ith the facts and the
applicable la&, the challen%ed Decision dated 7) $pril +//( of the RT*, 'r. 87, Ti%aon, *aarines Sur is $66IRM5D in
toto.
1
The decretal portion of the trial court Decision
8
is as follo&s3
4H5R56OR5, preises considered, decision is hereb! rendered in favor of 9herein Respondent: Pedro Pilapil, and
a%ainst 9herein Petitioner: Toasa ;uison as follo&s3
a- Declarin% 5"h. ', the so called <reconstructed arria%e contract< e"cluded under the best evidence rule, and
therefore declarin% said 5"h. ' spurious and non=e"istent.
b- Declarin% 5"h. 8 Order dated .ul! +0, +/>+, and the si%nature of the issuin% .ud%e .OS5 ?. MO@$ ,5"h. 8(- to
be %enuine.
c- Peranentl! settin% aside and liftin% the provisional &rit of inAunction earlier issuedB and
d- To pa! attorne!Cs fees of P)7,777.
$nd costs a%ainst 9herein petitioner.:
The Facts
The *ourt of $ppeals narrates the facts thus3
Plaintiff=appellant 9petitioner herein: claied to be the survivin% spouse of deceased Dr. $lfredo 5. .acob and &as
appointed Special $dinistrati" for the various estates of the deceased b! virtue of a reconstructed Marria%e *ontract
bet&een herself and the deceased.
Defendant=appellee on the other hand, claied to be the le%all!=adopted son of $lfredo. In support of his clai, he
presented an Order dated +0 .ul! +/>+ issued b! then Presidin% .ud%e .ose ?. Mo!a, *6I, *aarines Sur, %rantin% the
petition for adoption filed b! deceased $lfredo in favor of Pedro Pilapil.1wphi1.nt
Durin% the proceedin% for the settleent of the estate of the deceased $lfredo in *ase No. T=(> ,entitled <Toasa vda. de
.acob v. .ose *entenera, et al- herein defendant=appellee Pedro sou%ht to intervene therein claiin% his share of the
deceased2s estate as $lfredoCs adopted son and as his sole survivin% heir. Pedro #uestioned the validit! of the arria%e
bet&een appellant Toasa and his adoptive father $lfredo.
$ppellant Toasa opposed the Motion for Intervention and filed a coplaint for inAunction &ith daa%es ,*ivil *ase No. T=
08- #uestionin% appelleeCs clai as the le%al heir of $lfredo.
The follo&in% issues &ere raised in the court a quo3
a- 4hether the arria%e bet&een the plaintiff=appellant and deceased $lfredo .acob &as validB
b- 4hether the defendant=appellee is the le%all! adopted son of deceased .acob.
On the first issue, appellant clais that the arria%e bet&een her and $lfredo &as soleniDed b! one Ms%r. 6lorencio *.
@llana, *'*P, Intrauros, Manila soetie in +/E). She could not ho&ever present the ori%inal cop! of the Marria%e
*ontract statin% that the ori%inal docuent &as lost &hen Ms%r. @llana alle%edl! %ave it to Mr. .ose *entenera for
re%istration. In lieu of the ori%inal, Toasa presented as secondar! evidence a reconstructed Marria%e *ontract issued in
+/E0.
Durin% the trial, the court a quo observed the follo&in% irre%ularities in the e"ecution of the reconstructed Marria%e
*ontract, to &it3
+. No cop! of the Marria%e *ontract &as sent to the local civil re%istrar b! the soleniDin% officer thus %ivin% the
iplication that there &as no cop! of the arria%e contract sent to, nor a record e"istin% in the civil re%istr! of
ManilaB
1. In si%nin% the Marria%e *ontract, the late $lfredo .acob erel! placed his <thubarF< on said contract
purportedl! on +> Septeber +/E) ,date of the arria%e-. Ho&ever, on a S&orn $ffidavit e"ecuted bet&een
appellant Toasa and $lfredo a da! before the alle%ed date of arria%e or on +) Septeber +/E) attestin% that
both of the lived to%ether as husband and &ife for five ,)- !ears, $lfredo 9af:fi"ed his custoar! si%nature. Thus
the trial court concluded that the <thubarF< &as lo%icall! <not %enuine<. In other &ords, not of $lfredo .acob2sB
8. *ontrar! to appellant2s clai, in his $ffidavit statin% the circustances of the loss of the Marria%e *ontract, the
affiant Ms%r. @llana never entioned that he alle%edl! <%ave the copies of the Marria%e *ontract to Mr. .ose
*entenera for re%istration<. $nd as aditted b! appellant at the trial, .ose *entenera ,&ho alle%edl! acted as
padrino- &as not present at the date of the arria%e since he &as then in $ustralia. In fact, on the face of the
reconstructed Marria%e *ontract, it &as one <'enAain Molina< &ho si%ned on top of the t!pe&ritten nae of .ose
*entenera. This belies the clai that Ms%r. @llana alle%edl! %ave the copies of the Marria%e *ontract to Mr. .ose
*enteneraB
(. $ppellant aditted that there &as no record of the purported arria%e entered in the booF of records in San
$%ustin *hurch &here the arria%e &as alle%edl! soleniDed.
$nent the second issue, appellee presented the Order dated +0 .ul! +/>+ in Special Proceedin%s No. +/1 issued b! then
Presidin% .ud%e Mo!a %rantin% the petition for adoption filed b! deceased $lfredo &hich declared therein Pedro Pilapil as
the le%all! adopted son of $lfredo.
$ppellant Toasa ho&ever #uestioned the authenticit! of the si%nature of .ud%e Mo!a.
In an effort to disprove the %enuineness and authenticit! of .ud%e Mo!aCs si%nature in the Order %rantin% the petition for
adoption, the deposition of .ud%e Mo!a &as taFen at his residence on 7+ October +//7.
In his deposition, .ud%e Mo!a attested that he could no lon%er reeber the facts in Audicial proceedin%s taFen about
t&ent!=nine ,1/- !ears a%o &hen he &as then presidin% Aud%e since he &as alread! E/ !ears old and &as sufferin% fro
<%laucoa<.
The trial court then consulted t&o ,1- hand&ritin% e"perts to test the authenticit! and %enuineness of .ud%e Mo!aCs
si%nature.
$ hand&ritin% e"aination &as conducted b! 'inevenido *. $lbacea, N'I Docuent 5"ainer. 5"ainer $lbacea used
thirteen ,+8- specien si%natures of .ud%e Mo!a and copared it &ith the #uestioned si%nature. He pointed out
irre%ularities and <si%nificant fundaental differences in hand&ritin% characteristicsGhabits e"istin% bet&een the
#uestioned and the <standard< si%nature< and concluded that the #uestioned and the standard si%natures <.OS5 ?.
MO@$< &ere NOT &ritten b! one and the sae person.
On the other hand, to prove the %enuineness of .ud%e Mo!aCs si%nature, appellee presented the coparative findin%s of
the hand&ritin% e"aination ade b! a forer N'I *hief Docuent 5"ainer $tt!. Desiderio $. Pa%ui &ho e"ained
thirt!=t&o ,81- specien si%natures of .ud%e Mo!a inclusive of the thirteen ,+8- si%natures e"ained b! 5"ainer
$lbacea. In his report, $tt!. Pa%ui noted the e"istence of si%nificant siilarities of unconscious habitual pattern &ithin
allo&able variation of &ritin% characteristics bet&een the standard and the #uestioned si%natures and concluded that the
si%nature of .ud%e Mo!a appearin% in the Order dated +0 .ul! +/>+ %rantin% the petition for adoption &as indeed
%enuine.
*onfronted &ith t&o ,1- conflictin% reports, the trial court sustained the findin%s of $tt!. Pa%ui declarin% the si%nature of
.ud%e Mo!a in the challen%ed Order as %enuine and authentic.
'ased on the evidence presented, the trial court ruled for defendant=appellee sustainin% his clai as the le%all! adopted
child and sole heir of deceased $lfredo and declarin% the reconstructed Marria%e *ontract as spurious and non=e"istent.<
(
,citations oitted, ephasis in the ori%inal-
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In affirin% the Decision of the trial court, the *ourt of $ppeals ruled in this &ise3
Dealin% &ith the issue of validit! of the reconstructed Marria%e *ontract, $rticle >, par. + of the 6ail! *ode provides that
the declaration of the contractin% parties that the! taFe each other as husband and &ife <shall be set forth in an instruent
si%ned b! the parties as &ell as b! their &itnesses and the person soleniDin% the arria%e.< $ccordin%l!, the priar!
evidence of a arria%e ust be an authentic copy of the arria%e contract.
$nd if the authentic cop! could not be produced, Section 8 in relation to Section ), Rule +87 of the Revised Rules of *ourt
provides3
Sec. 8. Original document must e produced! e"ceptions. H 4hen the subAect of in#uir! is the contents of a
docuent, no evidence shall be adissible other than the ori%inal docuent itself, e"cept in the follo&in% cases3
,a- 4hen the ori%inal has been lost or destro!ed, or cannot be produced in court &ithout bad faith on the part of
the offerorB
" " " " " " " " "
Sec. ). #hen the original document is una$ailale. H 4hen the ori%inal docuent has been lost or destro!ed, or
cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its e"ecution or e"istence and the cause of its unavailabilit!
&ithout bad faith on his part, a! prove its contents b! a cop!. Or b! a recital of its contents in soe authentic
docuent, or b! the testion! of &itnesses in the order stated.
$s re#uired b! the Rules, before the ters of a transaction in realit! a! be established b! secondar! evidence, it is
necessar! that the due e"ecution of the docuent and subse#uent loss of the ori%inal instruent evidencin% the
transaction be proved. 6or it is the due e"ecution of the docuent and subse#uent loss that &ould constitute the
foundation for the introduction of secondar! evidence to prove the contents of such docuent.
In the case at bench, proof of due e"ecution besides the loss of the three ,8- copies of the arria%e contract has not been
sho&n for the introduction of secondar! evidence of the contents of the reconstructed contract. $lso, appellant failed to
sufficientl! establish the circustances of the loss of the ori%inal docuent.
4ith re%ard to the trial courtCs findin% that the si%nature of then .ud%e Mo!a in the #uestioned Order %rantin% the petition
for adoption in favor of Pedro Pilapil &as %enuine, suffice it to state that, in the absence of clear and convincin% proof to
the contrar!, the presuption applies that .ud%e Mo!a in issuin% the order acted in the perforance of his re%ular duties.
6urtherore, since the si%nature appearin% in the challen%ed Order &as subAected to a ri%id e"aination of t&o ,1-
hand&ritin% e"perts, this ne%ates the possibilit! of for%er! of .ud%e Mo!aCs si%nature. The value of the opinion of a
hand&ritin% e"pert depends not upon his ere stateent of &hether a &ritin% is %enuine or false, but upon the assistance
he a! afford in pointin% out distin%uishin% arFs, characteristics, and discrepancies in and bet&een %enuine and false
speciens of &ritin% of &hich &ould ordinaril! escape notice or dete9c:tion fro an unpracticed observer. $nd in the final
anal!sis, the assessent of the credibilit! of such e"pert &itnesses rests lar%el! in the discretion of the trial court, and the
test of #ualification is necessaril! a relative one, dependin% upon the subAect under investi%ation and the fitness of the
particular &itness. 5"cept in e"traordinar! cases, an appellate court &ill not reverse on account of a istaFe of Aud%ent
on the part of the trial court in deterinin% #ualifications of this case.
.urisprudence is settled that the trial courtCs findin%s of fact &hen abl! supported b! substantial evidence on record are
accorded &ith %reat &ei%ht and respect b! the *ourt. Thus, upon revie&, 4e find that no aterial facts &ere overlooFed
or i%nored b! the court belo& &hich if considered i%ht var! the outcoe of this case nor there e"ist co%ent reasons that
&ould &arrant reversal of the findin%s belo&. 6actual findin%s of the trial court are entitled to %reat &ei%ht and respect on
appeal especiall! &hen established b! unrebutted testion! and docuentar! evidence.
)
,citations oitted, ephasis in
the ori%inal-
Disa%reein% &ith the above, petitioner lod%ed her Petition for Revie& before this *ourt.
>
The %ssues
In her Meorandu petitioner presents the follo&in% issues for the resolution of this *ourt3
a- 4hether or not the arria%e bet&een the plaintiff Toasa Vda. De .acob and deceased $lfredo 5. .acob &as validB
and
b- 4hether defendant Pedro Pilapil is the le%all! adopted son of $lfredo 5. .acob.
E
The Court&s Ruling
The Petition is eritorious. PetitionerCs arria%e is valid, but respondent2s adoption has not been sufficientl! established.
First %ssue3
'alidity of (arriage
Doctrinall!, a void arria%e a! be subAected to collateral attacF, &hile a voidable one a! be assailed onl! in a direct
proceedin%.
0
$&are of this fundaental distinction, Respondent Pilapil contends that the arria%e bet&een Dr. $lfredo .acob and
petitioner &as void a initio, because there &as neither a arria%e license nor a arria%e cereon!.
/
4e cannot sustain this
contention.
To start &ith, Respondent Pedro Pilapil ar%ues that the arria%e &as void because the parties had no arria%e license. This
ar%uent is isplaced, because it has been established that Dr. .acob and petitioner lived to%ether as husband and &ife for at
least five !ears.
+7
$n affidavit to this effect &as e"ecuted b! Dr. .acob and petitioner.
++
*learl! then, the arria%e &as e"ceptional
in character and did not re#uire a arria%e license under $rticle E> of the *ivil *ode.
+1
The *ivil *ode %overns this case, because
the #uestioned arria%e and the assailed adoption tooF place prior the effectivit! of the 6ail! *ode.
#hen %s )econdary *$idence AllowedI
<It is settled that if the ori%inal &ritin% has been lost or destro!ed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its e"ecution and
loss or destruction, or unavailabilit!, its contents a! be proved b! a cop! or a recital of its contents in soe authentic docuent,
or b! recollection of &itnesses.<
+8
Jpon a sho&in% that the docuent &as dul! e"ecuted and subse#uentl! lost, &ithout an! bad
faith on the part of the offeror, secondar! evidence a! be adduced to prove its contents.
+(
The trial court and the *ourt of $ppeals coitted reversible error &hen the! ,+- e"cluded the testionies of petitioner, $dela
Pilapil and Ms%r. 6lorencio @llana and ,1- disre%arded the follo&in%3 ,a- photo%raphs of the &eddin% cereon!B ,b- docuentar!
evidence, such as the letter of Monsi%nor @llana statin% that he had soleniDed the arria%e bet&een Dr. .acob and petitioner,
infored the $rchbishop of Manila that the &eddin% had not been recorded in the 'ooF of Marria%es, and at the sae tie
re#uested the list of parties to the arria%eB ,c- the subse#uent authoriDation issued b! the $rchbishop H throu%h his vicar
%eneral and chancellor, Ms%r. 'enAain ?. Marino H ordainin% that the union bet&een Dr. .acob and petitioner be reflected
throu%h a correspondin% entr! in the 'ooF of Marria%esB and ,d- the $ffidavit of Monsi%nor @llana statin% the circustances of the
loss of the arria%e certificate.
It should be stressed that the due e"ecution and the loss of the arria%e contract, both constitutin% the conditio sine qua non for
the introduction of secondar! evidence of its contents, &ere sho&n b! the ver! evidence the! have disre%arded. The! have thus
confused the evidence to sho& due e"ecution and loss as <secondar!< evidence of the arria%e. In +ernae, $. (cgrath,
+)
the
*ourt clarified this isconception thus3
. . . 9T:he court belo& &as entirel! istaFen in holdin% that parol evidence of the e"ecution of the instruent &as barred.
The court confounded the e"ecution and the contents of the document. It is the contents, . . . &hich a! not be prove9n:
b! secondar! evidence &hen the instruent itself is accessible. Proofs of the e"ecution are not dependent on the
e"istence or non=e"istence of the docuent, and, as a atter of fact, such proofs precede proofs of the contents3 due
e"ecution, besides the loss, has to be sho&n as foundation for the introduction of secondar! evidence of the contents.
" " " " " " " " "
5vidence of the e"ecution of a docuent is, in the last anal!sis, necessaril! collateral or priar!. %t generally consists of
parol testimony or e"trinsic papers. *$en when the document is actually produced- its authenticity is not necessarily- if at
all- determined from its face or recital of its contents ut y parol e$idence. $t the ost, failure to produce the docuent,
&hen available, to establish its e"ecution a! affect the &ei%ht of the evidence presented but not the adissibilit! of such
evidence. ,ephasis ours-
The *ourt of $ppeals, as &ell as the trial court, tried to Austif! its stand on this issue b! rel!in% on .im Tanhu $. Ramolete.
+>
'ut
even there, &e said that <arria%e a! be prove9n: b! other copetent evidence.<
+E
Trul!, the e"ecution of a docuent a! be proven b! the parties theselves, b! the s&earin% officer, b! &itnesses &ho sa& and
reco%niDed the si%natures of the partiesB or even b! those to &ho the parties have previousl! narrated the e"ecution thereof.
+0

The *ourt has also held that <9t:he loss a! be sho&n b! an! person &ho 9Fno&s: the fact of its loss, or b! an! one &ho ha9s:
ade, in the Aud%ent of the court, a sufficient e"aination in the place or places &here the docuent or papers of siilar
character are usuall! Fept b! the person in &hose custod! the docuent lost &as, and has been unable to find itB or &ho has
ade an! other investi%ation &hich is sufficient to satisf! the court that the instruent 9has: indeed 9been: lost.<
+/
In the present case, due e"ecution &as established b! the testionies of $dela Pilapil, &ho &as present durin% the arria%e
cereon!, and of petitioner herself as a part! to the event. The subse#uent loss &as sho&n b! the testion! and the affidavit of
the officiatin% priest, Monsi%nor @llana, as &ell as b! petitionerCs o&n declaration in court. These are relevant, copetent and
adissible evidence. Since the due e"ecution and the loss of the arria%e contract &ere clearl! sho&n b! the evidence
presented, secondar! evidence H testionial and docuentar! H a! be aditted to prove the fact of arria%e.
The trial court pointed out that on the face of the reconstructed arria%e contract &ere certain irre%ularities su%%estin% that it had
fraudulentl! been obtained.
17
5ven if &e &ere to a%ree &ith the trial court and to disre%ard the reconstructed arria%e contract, &e
ust ephasiDe that this certificate is not the onl! proof of the union bet&een Dr. .acob and petitioner.
/roof of (arriage
$s earl! as /ugeda $. Trias,
1+
&e have held that arria%e a! be proven b! an! copetent and relevant evidence. In that case,
&e said3
Testion! b! one of the parties to the marriage, or b! one of the witnesses to the marriage, has been held to be
adissible to prove the fact of arria%e. The person &ho officiated at the soleniDation is also copetent to testif! as an
e!e&itness to the fact of arria%e.
11
,ephasis supplied-
In 0alogog $. CA,
18
&e siilarl! held3
9$:lthou%h a arria%e contract is considered primary evidence of arria%e, the failure to present it is not proof that no
arria%e tooF place. Other e$idence may e presented to pro$e marriage. ,ephasis supplied, footnote oitted-
In both cases, &e allo&ed testionial evidence to prove the fact of arria%e. 4e reiterated this principle in Trinidad $. CA,
1(
in
&hich, because of the destruction of the arria%e contract, &e accepted testionial evidence in its place.
1)
Respondent Pedro Pilapil isplaces ephasis on the absence of an entr! pertainin% to +/E) in the 'ooFs of Marria%e of the ?ocal
*ivil Re%istrar of Manila and in the National *ensus and Statistics Office ,N*SO-.
1>
He finds it #uite <biDarre< for petitioner to have
&aited three !ears before re%isterin% their arria%e.
1E
On both counts, he proceeds fro the &ron% preise. In the first place,
failure to send a cop! of a arria%e certificate for record purposes does not invalidate the arria%e.
10
In the second place, it &as
not the petitioner2s dut! to send a cop! of the arria%e certificate to the civil re%istrar. Instead, this char%e fell upon the
soleniDin% officer.
1/
/resumption in Fa$or of (arriage
?iFe&ise, &e have held3
The basis of huan societ! throu%hout the civiliDed &orld is . . . of arria%e. Marria%e in this Aurisdiction is not onl! a civil
contract, but it is a ne& relation, an institution in the aintenance of &hich the public is deepl! interested. *onse#uentl!,
ever! intendent of the la& leans to&ard le%aliDin% atrion!. /ersons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are
presumed- in the asence of any counterpresumption or e$idence special to the case- to e in fact married. The reason is
that such is the coon order of societ!, and if the parties &ere not &hat the! thus hold theselves out as bein%, the!
&ould be livin% in the constant violation of decenc! and of la&. $ presuption established b! our *ode of *ivil Procedure
is <that a an and &oan deportin% theselves as husband and &ife have entered into a la&ful contract of arria%e.<
)emper praesumitur pro matrimonio H $l&a!s presue arria%e.
87
,ephasis supplied-
This Aurisprudential attitude
8+
to&ards arria%e is based on the prima facie presuption that a an and a &oan deportin%
theselves as husband and &ife have entered into a la&ful contract of arria%e.
81
;iven the undisputed, even accepted,
88
fact
that Dr. .acob and petitioner lived to%ether as husband and &ife,
8(
&e find that the presuption of arria%e &as not rebutted in
this case.
)econd %ssue3
'alidity of Adoption Order
In rulin% that Respondent Pedro Pilapil &as adopted b! Dr. .acob and that the si%nature of .ud%e Mo!a appearin% on the $doption
Order &as valid, the *ourt of $ppeals relied on the presuption that the Aud%e had acted in the re%ular perforance of his duties.
The appellate court also %ave credence to the testion! of respondent2s hand&ritin% e"pert, for <the assessent of the credibilit!
of such e"pert &itness rests lar%el! on the discretion of the trial court . . . <
8)
4e disa%ree. $s a rule, the factual findin%s of the trial court are accorded %reat &ei%ht and respect b! appellate courts, because it
had the opportunit! to observe the deeanor of &itnesses and to note telltale si%ns indicatin% the truth or the falsit! of a testion!.
The rule, ho&ever, is not applicable to the present case, because it &as .ud%e $u%usto O. *ledera, not the ponente, &ho heard
the testionies of the t&o e"pert &itnesses. Thus, the *ourt e"ained the records and found that the *ourt of $ppeals and the
trial court <failed to notice certain relevant facts &hich, if properl! considered, &ill Austif! a different conclusion.<
8>
Hence, the
present case is an e"ception to the %eneral rule that onl! #uestions of la& a! be revie&ed in petitions under Rule ().
8E
*entral to the present #uestion is the authenticit! of .ud%e Mo!aCs si%nature on the #uestioned Order of $doption. To enli%hten the
trial court on this atter, t&o e"pert &itnesses &ere presented, one for petitioner and one for Respondent Pilapil. The trial court
relied ainl! on respondent2s e"pert and brushed aside the Deposition of .ud%e Mo!a hiself.
80
Respondent Pilapil Austifies the
trial Aud%e2s action b! ar%uin% that the Deposition &as abi%uous. He contends that .ud%e Mo!a could not reeber &hether the
si%nature on the Order &as his and cites the follo&in% portion as proof3
8/
K. 4hat &as !ou9r: response, sirI
$3 I said I do not reeber.
Respondent PilapilCs ar%uent is isleadin%, because it tooF the Aud%eCs testion! out of its conte"t. *onsidered &ith the rest of
the Deposition, .ud%e Mo!aCs stateents contained no abi%uit!. He &as clear &hen he ans&ered the #ueries in the follo&in%
anner3
$tt!. 'enito P. 6abie
K. 4hat else did she tell !ou9I:
$. $nd she asF9ed: e if I reebered havin% issued the order.
K. 4hat &as !our response sir9I:
$. I said I do not reeber.
(7
The ans&er <I do not reeber< did not su%%est that .ud%e Mo!a &as unsure of &hat he &as declarin%. In fact, he &as ephatic
and cate%orical in the subse#uent e"chan%es durin% the Deposition3
$tt!. 'enito P. 6abie
K. I a sho&in% to !ou this Order, 5"h. <$< deposition9B: &ill !ou please recall &hether !ou issued this Order and &hether
the facsiile of the si%nature appearin% thereon is !our si%nature.
$. $s I said, I do not reeber havin% issued such an order and the si%nature readin% .ose9B: I can2t aFe out clearl!
&hat coes after the nae9B: .ose Mo!a is not ! si%nature.
(+
*learl!, .ud%e Mo!a could not recall havin% ever issued the Order of $doption. More iportantl!, &hen sho&n the si%nature over
his nae, he positivel! declared that it &as not his.
The fact that he had %laucoa &hen his Deposition &as taFen does not discredit his stateents. $t the tie, he could &ith
edication still read the ne&spapersB upon the re#uest of the defense counsel, he even read a docuent sho&n to hi.
(1
Indeed,
&e find no reason L and the respondent has not presented an! L to disre%ard the Deposition of .ud%e Mo!a.
.ud%e Mo!aCs declaration &as supported b! the e"pert testion! of N'I Docuent 5"ainer 'ienvenido $lbacea, &ho declared3
$tt!. Paraiso
K $nd &ere !ou able to deterine 9&:hat purpose !ou had in !our e"aination of this docuentI
$ @es sir, 9based on: ! conclusion, 9I: stated that the #uestioned and the standard si%nature .ose ?. Mo!a &ere not
&ritten b! one and the sae person. On the basis of ! findin%s that I &ould point out in detail, the difference in the
&ritin% characteristics 9&as: in the structural pattern of letters &hich is ver! apparent as sho&n in the photo%raph as the
capital letter <.<.
(8
It is note&orth! that Mr. $lbacea is a disinterested part!, his services havin% been sou%ht &ithout an! copensation. Moreover, his
copetence &as reco%niDed even b! Respondent Pilapil2s e"pert &itness, $tt!. Desiderio Pa%ui.
((
Other considerations also cast doubt on the clai of respondent. The alle%ed Order &as purportedl! ade in open court. In his
Deposition, ho&ever, .ud%e Mo!a declared that he did not dictate decisions in adoption cases. The onl! decisions he ade in
open court &ere criinal cases, in &hich the accused pleaded %uilt!.
()
Moreover, .ud%e Mo!a insisted that the branch &here he
&as assi%ned &as al&a!s indicated in his decisions and ordersB !et the #uestioned Order did not contain this inforation.
6urtherore, Pilapil2s conduct %ave no indication that he reco%niDed his o&n alle%ed adoption, as sho&n b! the docuents that
he si%ned and other acts that he perfored thereafter.
(>
In the sae vein, no proof &as presented that Dr. .acob had treated hi
as an adopted child. ?iFe&ise, both the 'ureau of Records Mana%eent
(E
in Manila and the Office of the ?ocal *ivil Re%istrar of
Ti%aon, *aarines Sur,
(0
issued *ertifications that there &as no record that Pedro Pilapil had been adopted b! Dr. .acob. TaFen
to%ether, these circustances ine"orabl! ne%ate the alle%ed adoption of respondent.
(/
The burden of proof in establishin% adoption is upon the person claiin% such relationship.
)7
This Respondent Pilapil failed to do.
Moreover, the evidence presented b! petitioner sho&s that the alle%ed adoption is a sha.
4H5R56OR5, the Petition is ;R$NT5D and the assailed Decision of the *ourt of $ppeals is R5V5RS5D and S5T $SID5. The
arria%e bet&een Petitioner Toasa Vda. de .acob and the deceased $lfredo 5. .acob is hereb! reco%niDed and declared V$?ID
and the claied adoption of Respondent Pedro Pilapil is D5*?$R5D NON5MIST5NT. No pronounceent as to
costs.1wphi1.nt
SO ORD5R5D.
(elo- 'itug- /urisima and 1on,aga2Reyes- 33.- concur.