By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
Time could be the ultimate tester of things. Whether something will last or not, of course, only time can tell.
In Evidence law, time-tested documents are deemed admissible even if no one can “authenticate” their “genuineness and due execution” anymore. Section 21, Rule 132 defines an ancient document as one that:
1)is more than 30 years old;
2) is produced from custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and
3) is unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of suspicion. (Circado-Belison v. Circado, G.R. No. 185374, March 11, 2015; Asuncion Z. Jurado et al., v. Spouses Vicente and Carmen Chai, G.R. No. 236516, March 25, 2019).
In a case involving the Republic of the Philippines that had expropriated a tract of land, the issue that cropped up was whether there was full payment of just compensation that effectively operated to transfer ownership of the same from the private persons who owned it to the Republic.
One key piece of documentary evidence that was pivotal to the decision is the Provincial Voucher which was issued more than thirty (30) years prior. Given its antiquity, the one who issued it was no longer available to give testimony to prove its genuineness. Thus, the heirs of the previous owner who had sold the land to a company, had claimed that there was no such expropriation of their land much less any payment of just compensation.
In Mazy’s Capital, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of National Defense, G.R. No. 259815, which came down on August 5, 2024, it was concluded that:
“In any event, both the Provincial Voucher and the Mocion are ancient documents, and no further evidence of their authenticity is needed. Under Rule 132, Section 21, “an ancient document [is] one that: 1)is more than 30 years old; 2) is produced from custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and 3)is unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of suspicion.”
Holding on to important documents therefore is crucial to prove claims and disprove an unwarranted claim. The owner of the documents must keep them in a safe place and be able to account for their whereabouts during the time that those documents were lying in passivity.
Too, it is primordial that the said documents are legible and their integrity unquestionable. Otherwise, the requirement of being “unblemished by any alteration or any circumstance of suspicion” would not be satisfied.
Indeed, in life, there are matters that are proven by the test of time. Whether a problem is truly a problem depends on whether it will subsist over time. There are some concerns that could be troubling for a while, but they don’t really develop into a real problem if only we are patient enough to allow time to pass by.
Then there are matters that we need to guard over close to our chest. They could be important documents, valuable personal properties, and personal relationships.
These too must be kept in proper custody, for a long period of time, and “unblemished by any alteration or any circumstance of suspicion.”
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
