04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (4) To pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.[36] It appears that no motion for reconsideration was filed before the trial court. Nevetheless, the trial court issued an Order[37] allowing the petitioners' Notice of Appeal.[38] Ruling of the Court of Appeals[39] The sole issue resolved by the appellate court was whether the trial court erred in ruling in favor of respondent in light of the adduced evidence. Citing the rule on preponderance of evidence, the CA held that the respondent was able to discharge her burden in proving her title and interest to the subject property. Her documentary evidence were amply supported by the testimonial evidence of her witnesses. In contrast, petitioners only made bare allegations in their testimonies that are insufficient to overcome respondent's documentary evidence. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration[40] of the adverse decision but the same was denied. Hence this petition, which was initially denied for failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error.[41] Upon petitioners' motion for reconsideration,[42] the petition was reinstated in the Court's January 15, 2007 Resolution.[43] Petitioners' arguments Petitioners assign as error the CA's appreciation of the evidence already affirmed and considered by the trial court. They maintain that the change in the presiding judges who heard and decided their case resulted in the appreciation of what would otherwise be inadmissible evidence.[44] Petitioners ask that the Court exempt their petition from the general rule that a trial judge's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect on appeal. To support their claim that the trial and appellate courts erred in ruling in favor of respondent, they assailed the various pieces of evidence offered by respondent. They maintain that the Deed of Quitclaim executed by the Heirs of Ap-ap is spurious and lacks the parties' and witnesses' signatures. Moreover, it is a mere photocopy, which was never authenticated by the notary public in court and no reasons were proferred regarding the existence, loss, and contents of the original copy.[45] Under the best evidence rule, the Deed of Quitclaim is inadmissible in evidence and should have been disregarded by the court. Respondent did not prove that she and her husband possessed the subject property since time immemorial. Petitioners argue that respondent admitted possessing and cultivating only the land that lies outside the subject property.[46] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54595 6/17