[G.R. No. 117384.

October 21, 1998] HEIRS OF TEODORO DELA CRUZ represented by EDRONEL DELA CRUZ, petitioners, vs. CO URT OF APPEALS, PACIFICO MARQUEZ, FILOMENO and GREGORIO, both surnamed MADRID, resp ondents. Petitioners seek the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm ing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Isabela. FACTS: On November 20, 1986, petitioners filed an action for reconveyance with damages against private respondents involving a parcel of land situated in Pobla cion, San Mateo, Isabela with a total area of 3,277 square meters petitioners ass ert that the subject land was bought by their predecessor-in-interest from the p rivate respondents, Madrid brothers, for P4,000.00 on May 18, 1959. Since then t hey have been in actual, physical, continuous and open possession of the propert y. However in October 1986, private respondents managed to obtain a Torrens Titl e over the said land, the Madrids denied having executed the said deed of sale a nd alleged that the document was fictitious and falsified. Meanwhile, Pacifico M arquez contends that he is an innocent purchaser for value of the property havin g bought the same from the Madrid brothers in 1976. During the trial, petitioners were unable to present the original deed o f sale since it was lost.They were constrained to offer, as Exhibit A, a photo copy of the purported original carbon copy of the deed of sale in an effort to prove the transaction, The trial court ruled that Exhibit A was inadmissible in evidenc e, for No proof was adduced that this remaining copy was lost or destroyed.. no attempt was done to produce the copies retained by the notary public although th ere is a possibility that the same still exist.. Neither was there any proof tha t the copy sent to the court as required by the notarial law is unavailable. the trial court dismissed petitioners complaint.. Declaring the defendants the la wful owners .. Ordering the plaintiffs.. to vacate the portions of Lots 7036-A-1 0-A,.. 70360A-10-B and 7036-A-10-C.. Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the decision of the RTC rendering its judgment which r uled that Exhibit A was admissible in evidence for failure of the private responde nts to object when it was offered during the trial, but it had no probative valu e to support the allegation of the petitioners that the disputed land was sold t o them in 1959. Failing in their bid to reconsider the decision, the petitioners have filed the present petition. Issue: Whether Exhibit A is admissible as evidence? Exhibit A is admitted in evidence, we agree with the Court of Appeals that its probative value must still meet the various tests by which its reliability is to be determined. Its tendency to convince and persuade must be considered for admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. A cu rsory glance will immediately reveal that it was unsigned by any of the parties and undated as to when it was executed. In other words, Atty. Tabangay s failure t o determine the accuracy of the carbon copy requested by the petitioners predeces sor-in-interest renders Exhibit A unreliable. Petitioners explanation that these copies were lost or could not be found in the National Archives was not even supported by any certification from the s aid office. It is a well-settled principle that before secondary evidence can be pre sented, all duplicates and/or counterparts must be accounted for, and no excuse for the non-production of the original document itself can be regarded as establ

ished until all its parts are unavailable. Whether their long possession of the land in question, bolstered by the construc tion of various improvements gives rise to the disputable presumption of ownersh ip? The records show that the disputed property has been in the possession o f the petitioners since 1959. They have since been introducing several improveme nts on the land which certainly could not have escaped the attention of the Madr ids. The construction of various infrastructure on the land - rice mill, storage house, garage, pavements and other buildings - was undoubtedly a clear exercise of ownership which the Madrids could not ignore. The Failure of the Madrids raise a restraining arm or a shout of dissen t to the petitioners possession of the subject land in a span of almost thirty (3 0) years is simply contrary to their claim of ownership. Whether neither prescription nor laches can operate against the madrid because t heir title to the property is registered under the Torrens system and therefore imprescriptable? The Torrens system does not create or vest title. It has never been reco gnized as a mode of acquiring ownership, especially considering the fact that bo th the Madrids and Marquezes obtained their respective TCT s only in October 1986, twenty-seven long (27) years after petitioners first took possession of the lan d. They should have filed a judicial action for recovery of possession and not m erely to have the land registered under their respective names. Lastly, Marquez claim that he is a purchaser in good faith and for value does not inspire any merit. Where a purchaser was fully aware of another person s possession of the lo t he purchased, he cannot successfully pretend later to be an innocent purchaser for value. Moreover, one who buys without checking the vendor s title takes all t he risks and losses consequent to such failure. The decision of the Court of Appeals REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Instead, petitioners are hereby declared as the legal owners of the subject land.