Facts:
1.
Respondent Jesus R.
Martin filed the
complaint against petitioner
Pastor Lopez seeking principally the recovery of 2 parcels of land
described in par 3 and 7
of the complaint,
and the declaration
of nullity of
the deed of
sale allegedly executed by one Gervacio Resoso conveying to
the petitioner the
said land described
in par 3.
2.
Lopez, filed his answer,
alleging the he
is the owner
of the parcels
of land as well as the
improvements thereon by virtue of a deed of absolute sale duly executed
by Gervacio over the
parcel of land
described in par
3 of, and
also by virtue
of a deed
of absolute sale
executed by Zacarias Resoso over the parcel of land described in
par 7
3.
The evidence adduced by Martin shows that he is the grandson and sole
heir of the
deceased Gervacio; that the said 2 parcels of land and the house
constructed on the residential land described
in par 3
of said complaint
had been in
the continous possession
of Gervacio until his
death; that after
the death of
Gervacio, Pastor Lopez
illegally took possession
of the said
parcels of land
and drove the
respondent Martin from
the house constructed on the residential
land described in par 3
of the complaint;
that the deed
of absolute sale allegedly executed
by Gervacio conveying to the
petitioner the land described in par 3 is "fictitious, simulated and
fraudulent," the signature of Gervacio appearing thereon not being his
genuine signature.
4.
On the other
hand, Lopez claimed that
he is the
stepson of the Gervacio
being the child by another man of Gervacio's second wife; that
he bought the
parcel of land
described in par 3 for a consideration of
P100 in the
presence of Judge Simeon
Rico, Justice of the Peace
of Labrador, who prepared
and notarized the
disputed deed of
sale and in
the presence of
the two witnesses
to the contract
of sale; that
thereafter he declared
for taxation purposes
the said parcel
of land in
his name and
since then, he had been
paying the taxes
thereon; that it was he who built the house existing on the land
described in par 3; and
that he bought
the parcel of
land described in par 7 from
one Zacarias, brother of the deceased owner.
5.
At the trial below, Lopez presented
as witnesses Judge
Simeon Rico, the
Notary Public, and
the two alleged
subscribing witnesses to
the said deed,
Antonio Marayag and
Feliciano Soliven, who
all affirmed the
genuineness of the
said document.
6.
On the other hand, Martin presented Antonio Rotor, an NBI examiner of
documents, who testified that the signature on the deed of sale did not appear
to be the same signature of the vendor
appearing on other documents bearing his undisputed signature.
7.
The testimony of the NBI documents examiner is hereunder
reproduced.
a. Spelling of the name Gervacio Resoso:
In the standard, Gervacio Resoso is spelled as "B" and in the
letter "R" with RIS in all the
sample signatures, is. In the questioned signature, Gervacio, it is
"V" and in
Resoso, it is
spelled as letter
"E" and not
letter "I", one
of the signs
of capital letters
"D" and "R".
b. The sign
of letter "G"
in the standard
is different from
the genuine of
the capital letter
"R"; it curves
or there is
a curve of capital letter
"R" and it is found in all the standard type which sows the
characteristics or permanent
characters of the
writer.
c. In
the last signature there is a curve but it does not
touch the extent of the letter, it is
outside but it
is the characteristics curving
the internal stroke.
In the questioned signature, there is no curve. It
is just a simple curve to the right.
d. The standard basis of my findings
are the sized of the letters. sir. The letters
or standard is Exhs... "E91" to
"E96", the tendency
of these letters
is narrower and
in the questioned
documents Exh... A, the letters
are broad instead
of narrower and
in the terminal
stroke of the
letter "V",there is
a pause which indicates the
stroke or rather there is a pause there.
e. Also in
the terminal stroke
of Exh... "E", there
is a pause
indicated by a
broad stroke. It
is also in
indication that the
writer paused and
unlike the standard signatures, there is a steady
movement of the writer makes a cross and
there is an overwriting here of the letters and then before he makes the connection to the next letter, there is a
hesitation as indicated by the stroke
here. (The witness
indicating the line
between the letters,
"E" and "S"
in Exh... "A")
f. Another characteristic is terminal
letter "O" in the word, Resoso
to the preceding
Letter "S". These
are the tendency
of these letters
in the sample
signature, Exhs. "1"
to "E96" are
smaller than the
preceding letter "S"
and which is
different in the
questioned signature Resoso
in Exh.. "A". And
with this findings,
my conclusion is
that the writer
of the questioned
signature in Exh..
"A" is not
the same writer
who submitted this
standard which are marked Exhs..
"E91" to "E96", sir." (sic) 2
8.
LC: Par 3 lot- declared "false and apocryphal, null and
void, the Deed
of Absolute Sale,
Par 7 lot-the said
land had been
sold by Zacarias to Lopez, with the conformity and
the knowledge of Gervacio
9.
Lopez limited his
appeal to the decision
of the lower
court declaring Martin as
the true owner
of the parcel of land described
in par 3 on the ground that the deed of
sale conveying the same to Lopez is a falsity
10.
CA: found the signature
of Gervacio appearing on the
disputed document of forgery and affirmed
the decision of the lower court.
11.
Lopez filed MR, and an
urgent motion setting the said MR for oral argument. –both
motions DENIED
Issue/s: Assignment of errors of the petitioner
I. The court
erred in not
applying the rule
that public documents
are presumed genuine
and regular and
that it requires
not merely preponderance
of evidence but
clear, strong, and
conclusive evidence to
overthrow this legal presumption.
II. The court
erred in disregarding
the inflexible rule
that gives priority
to subscribing witnesses
in the order
and quality of
evidence to prove
a handwriting.
III. The court
deviated from accepted
rules in not taking into
account the testimony
of the judge notary
and two subscribing
witnesses who gave
uncontradicted testimony as to the
genuineness of the
signature in the
Deed of Sale which they personally witnessed.
IV. The court
erred in not
taking into account
the rule that
the opinion testimony
of an expert
is the most
unreliable, the weakest,
and the lowest
order of evidence known to law.
V. The court
erred in not
taking into account
that petitioner reasonably
explained the differences
in the signatures
as reported by
the witness and
observed by the court.
VI. The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the
finding of the lower court on the alleged
"unusual"
procedure of payment
when the same
is grounded entirely on conjecture and not based on
evidence of record.
VII. The court erred in sustaining award of damages
which is without basis in fact and law.
Held:
We find the contentions of petitioner to be without
merit.
The first 5
errors assigned by
petitioner all assail
the finding of
the appellate court
that the deed
of sale is forgery.
ERROR I:
It is true
that public documents
are presumed genuine
and regular under
the provisions of
the Rules of
Court but this
presumption is a
rebuttable presumption which
may be overcome
by clear, strong
and convincing evidence,
not conclusion evidence.
In the case
at bar, the CA
relied not merely
on the expert
testimony given by Rotor,
the NBI handwriting
expert, but also made its own comparative analysis, and arrived at its own finding and conclusion, which states:
Apart from
the finding of
Antonio B. Rotor,
an NBI handwriting
expert, that the
writer of the
questioned signature is
not the same
writer of that
appearing on the
specimens of genuine signatures of Gervacio Resoso, by mere glance of
the questioned signatures
of Gervacio Resoso, and
the specimens the
marked difference and
distinction is patently
discernable. In the
questioned signature the
strokes of the
writer are not
natural.
Xxx
One does not need
to be an
expert to see
the very divergence
and distinction between
the signatures
This Court likewise
made a close
examination, comparison and
analysis of the
questioned and standard
signatures, aided by
the testimony of
the NBI witness
altogether paint a
picture of general
dissimilarity between the
standard signature and
the questioned signature.
ERROR II:
There is no inflexible rule as claimed by petitioner
under Sec. 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court that gives priority to
subscribing witnesses in the order and
quality of evidence
to prove a
handwriting. The rule merely
enumerates the means or methods by which the handwriting of
a person may
be proved, which
may either by:
1 — any
witness who believes
it to be
the handwriting of
such person, and
has seen the
person write;
2 — or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which
the witness has acted
or been charged,
and has thus
acquired knowledge of
the handwriting of such person;
3 — by comparison made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or
treated as genuine
by the party
against whom the evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the
judge.
The law makes no preference, much less distinction
among and between
the different means
stated above in
proving the handwriting
of a person.
Under the above cited
section, Sec, 23,
Rule 132, Revised
Rules of Court,
it must be
noted that the
court may also
make a comparison
between the questioned
and standard signatures
before it, and
since the Judge
or the Magistrates
must make use
of their physical
senses to conduct
an ocular inspection
of the signatures
where the signatures
appear as they
are, and not merely described by witnesses testifying
about them, the result of such
inspection by the Judge or the Magistrates becomes the ultimate
judgment of the Court. Plainly, the
signatures speak for themselves. Res ipsa loquitur.
ERROR III-IV:
We
disagree. It can
hardly be expected
of the notary
public to dispute
the authenticity of the very deed
he had notarized since he was paid his notarial
fees therefor, much
less of the
two subscribing witnesses
to deny their
participation because being
local politicians as
vice mayor and barrio
lieutenant, they are
likely to affix
their names to
every paper and
deed asked of
them to act
as witnesses by a school
principal and/or the
town judge as in this case.
On the other hand, Mr. Rotor, the NBI expert had
been an
examiner of questioned
documents of the
NBI for more
than 5 years.
His report shows that
the handwriting examination was requested by the Presiding
Judge himself. The said report bears also the approval by the Asst.
Director, Felipe P.
Logan. And there
is no proof that the
NBI witness was
paid by the
indice or interest
in making the
report. As a
government witness fulfilling
an official function
requested by the
Court, his testimony
on a technical
matter must be
viewed as a public duty
impressed with and
entitled to credence and faith.
ERROR V:
On the petitioner's explanation that the signature
"GERVACIO RESOSO" was
written because the
name as typewritten
was "GERVACIO RESOSO",
suffice it to
say that the
same contradicts petitioner's
evidence where the names
as typewritten were
also "GERVACIO RISOSO",
Petitioner also marked as his own evidence where the
typewritten names read
GERVACIO RESOSO and
the signatures above
spell: GERVACIO RISOSO.
All these repudiate petitioner's
explanation. Petitioner cannot
now repudiate his
own evidence for
he is bound by the same.
ERROR VI:
Anent the other
assignment of error attacking the finding of the lower court on
the "unusual" procedure
of payment which
the petitioner claims
to be grounded
on conjecture and
not based on
evidences of record,
the appellate court itself
approved the observation of the trial court, affirming it to
be well-founded "in
the sense that
transaction being between
a step father and stepson, the
natural course of things would be that there would be
no need for
the vendee to
show the payment
of the P100.00
to the vendor. And if the defendant has dared to
give such an exaggerated, not to say,
false evidence before
this Court, it
was only with
the purpose of
trying to hide a nefarious
and illegal act,
that is, the
falsification of the
deed of absolute sale.
We find other
exaggerated claims and
acts of petitioner
which run counter
to the natural
course of things,
inconsistent with the
contention of the
petitioner that he bought the property in question from Gervacio.
1.
Petitioner contends that
he has been
in possession of
the land "
in good faith
and in concept
of owner, openly,
publicly, adversely, peacefully,
actually and continuously
for more than
thirty years now."
a. Alleged
sale took place
on May 18,1948; If the claim of possession were
true, then he would have acquired the
land in 1927,
not on May
18, 1948. The
shallow pretense and
the empty extravagance
of petitioner's claim
is at once
palpable and must
fall from its inherent improbability of time and period.
2.
Petitioner claims that
he built his
house on the
land in controversy
in 1937, as
testified to by his witness, the
carpenter who took 4 weeks to build the house with 8
workers whose wages were paid by
the petitioner, the
latter paying the
materials used in
the construction
a. Again, this is exaggerated, if
to false
for petitioner supposedly
bought the land
in 1948 yet
he built his
house on the land in 1937, yet he declared the house for taxation
purposes 11 years thereafter, which against is irregular and out of the ordinary course of events.
3.
The act of
the petitioner in
registering the deed
of sale, allegedly executed
on May 18,
1948, in the
Office of the
Register of Deeds
of Pangasinan only on July 22,
1957, which was after the filing of the complaint on July 11, 1957 (Record on Appeal, 1) is
very suspicious.
a. this registration was caused by
petitioner 8 months
after the death
of the vendor,
Gervacio and 9
years after the
execution of the
instrument itself. these
posterior acts of
the petitioner indicate
a questionable and
doubtful design to
cover up a
suspicious, if not
nefarious transaction during the lifetime of the supposed vendor to hide
the transfer of the property to the
petitioner.
4.
It appears in
the deed of
sale that the land
which is described
therein as A parcel of
residential land containing an area of 1,456 square meters more or less and
assessed at P150.00
as described by
Tax Declaration was
sold for only
One Hundred Pesos
(P100.00) Philippine Currency.
Considering the area of the land;
the nature of
the lot it
being urban and
residential; its classification (2nd);
and its assessed
valuation by the
provincial assessor at
P150.00 for taxation
purposes, which is
usually 15%-20% of
the actual market
value,
a. It becomes evident that the consideration was
grossly inadequate.
b. And if We take into account the
value of improvements existing on the land
such as a
granary and the
trees growing thereon,
like coconuts, bamboos,
caimito, avocado, santol,
and nipa palms
that are made
into shingles and
sold commercially, the
price paid was
plainly unconscionable. These
are badges of fraud which reveal
the falsity of the alleged sale.
In the sum
and substance, where
petitioner's claims, defenses
and act are
highly improbable, exaggerated
and inconsistent with the regular
norm of human
conduct and the
normal course of
events, such as
a claim that
his possession and
ownership of the
property is more
than 30 years
when the said
property was supposedly
acquired and purchased
only 9 years back;
that the improvement
(house) was years
thereafter and he
declared the house
for taxation purposes
only after 11 years; that
he registered the
deed of sale 9
years after its
execution, and after
the complaint for
its cancellation had
already been filed,
and finally, the
gross inadequacy and
unconscionableness of the
consideration, petitioner's posture becomes a misrepresentation that
cannot be believed or sustained.
IN VIEW OF
THE FOREGOING, the
judgment appealed from
is hereby affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment