Dear PAO,
I am the child of two hippies who used to live in a remote barrio in a province in Mindanao. They decided to start a family there to live the life of the “working man” since both their parents were extremely rich. Shortly after I was born, my birth certificate was registered with the local civil registrar of that barrio. My parents kept this certificate throughout their lives until they passed away a few years ago after ingesting hallucinogenic mushrooms. Before then, I managed to make a photocopy of it for my personal use when I enrolled in school. Unfortunately, after my parents died, my original birth certificate went missing. The only document I have to prove my filiation and paternity is the photocopy in my possession since there is no record of my birth with the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). Apparently, the staff at the local civil registrar at the time had all been incompetent relatives of the officer in charge, and they failed to forward my birth certificate to the PSA before their office was flooded. All of my rich grandparents recently died within the past year. I want to inherit from them, but their relatives insist that the photocopy of my birth certificate is insufficient to prove my filiation since it is not the original. They want to keep my grandparents’ millions for themselves. Please help me. I do not want to work. I just want to get my inheritance and be an influencer on TikTok.
Xandra-Leigh
Dear Xandra-Leigh,
Yes, a photocopy of your birth certificate may be admitted in evidence to prove your filiation and paternity. Whether it will ultimately be sufficient to prove these matters, however, will depend on the totality of the evidence presented before the court.
The Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Ybo Lastimosa (G.R. No. 265758, February 03, 2025), explained that even photocopies of documents may be admissible in evidence, as stated in the following:
“Applying the foregoing to the instant case, the photocopy of the death certificate of Ildefonso may be admitted in evidence.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines photocopy as “a copy of usually printed material made with a process in which an image is formed by the action of light usually on an electrically charged surface.”57 Meanwhile, Encyclopedia Britannica defines photocopying as “[t]he process of producing copies of original documents and drawings by exposing the originals to chemicals, light, heat, or electrostatic energy and recording the resulting images on a sensitized surface.”
A duplicate is defined by Rule 130, Section 3(b) of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence as “a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.”
A photocopy, which is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original through action of light on an electrically charged surface, clearly falls under the definition of a duplicate. A photocopy, being a duplicate, is admissible to the same extent as the original absent any genuine question as to the authenticity of the original or a showing that it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
In this case, no question has been raised as to the authenticity of the original death certificate. There is also no allegation, much less proof, that it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate. Accordingly, the duplicate of the death certificate of Ildefonso, marked as Exhibit “B” by the RTC, is admissible to the same extent as the original.
At this juncture, it must be emphasized that the Court has, time and again, reiterated that the admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value:
Admissibility of evidence should not be confounded with its probative value.
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. 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. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, while the photocopy of the death certificate of Ildefonso is admissible, pursuant to Rule 130, Section 4(c) of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, its evidentiary weight lies in the fact that it corroborates the testimony of Dureza.”
Applying the foregoing to your situation, the photocopy of your birth certificate is a duplicate of your original birth certificate. As such, it may be admitted in evidence to prove your filiation and paternity in order to inherit from your dead grandparents. However, as emphasized by the Supreme Court, admissibility is different from probative value. Thus, while the photocopy may be admitted, the court will still determine, based on all the evidence presented, whether it is sufficient to establish your filiation and paternity and, consequently, your right to inherit from your grandparents.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
