Evidence Digest: FRANCISCO BUNAG VS. COURT OF APPEALS (1988)

Topic: Authentication and Proof of Documents 

FRANCISCO BUNAG VS. COURT OF APPEALS
[G.R. No. L-39013,February 29,1988]

Facts:

This case is about the due execution and authenticity of a thumb-marked, non-notarized and non-witnessed deed of sale of a parcel of unregistered land. The trial court found that private respondents have failed to prove the due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale. 

The Court of Appeals, however, overturned the trial court's finding, relying on the testimony of Brigida Bautista, a sister of private respondents. In her testimony however, Brigida Bautista did not furnish any details surrounding the execution of the document.

Issue:

Was the unnotarized deed of sale, a private writing, can be received in evidence without proving its due execution and authenticity?

Held:

NO. Proof of the due execution and authenticity of private writings is required under Section 21, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, to wit:

Sec. 21. Private writing, its execution and authenticity, how proved. — Before any private writing may be received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the writing executed;

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or

(c) By a subscribing witness.


It should be noted that (Exhibit "1") was written in English. Since it appears that said document was merely thumb-marked, it could reasonably be inferred that Apolonio Bunag, the supposed vendor, was illiterate. Under the stances, the minimum proof necessary to establish due authenticity should, in the least, include evidence that the document was duly read, explained and translated to Apolonio Bunag. Unfortunately, no such evidence was presented. 


The probative value of the testimony of Brigida Bautista, it is not sufficient if he states in a general manner that such person made the writing. More so if the document was merely thumb-marked.

Another fact which compels this Court to proceed with caution is the fact that there are no instrumental witnesses in the document. The mischief that lurks behind accepting at face value a document that is merely thumb-marked. without any witnesses to it, and not acknowledged before a notary public could be one of the reasons behind the requirement of the rules on evidence that a private writing must be shown to be duly executed and authenticated.

The due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale, (Exhibit 1) not having been satisfactorily proven, such private document should be excluded.