THIRD DIVISION
|
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R.
No. 160843 Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio Morales, Tinga, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. |
|
MARIA G. LAGON, represented by Armando
G. Lagon and/or Jose Lagon, Jr., Respondent. |
Promulgated:
July 11, 2006 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This
petition for review assails the Decision[1]
dated
Representatives of Maria Lagon (the Lagons) in her behalf
as the owner of three parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title
(TCT) Nos. T-56875 and T-11593 and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-1228,
filed two complaints docketed as Civil Case No. 5158 and Civil Case No. 5192. Both were filed by the Lagons
against Jao Bio Tong, China Banking Corporation (CBC)
and the Acting Provincial Sheriff of Nueva Vizcaya. While Civil
Case No. 5158 involved lots covered by TCT Nos. T-56875 and T-11593, Civil Case
No. 5192 involves only a lot covered by OCT No. P-1228, both put in issue the
authenticity of the Special Power of Attorney dated May 13, 1983 purportedly
executed by Maria Lagon in favor of Jao and, hence the validity of the mortgage over the lots
covered by the said titles executed by Jao on behalf
of Maria and in favor of CBC. The Lagons prayed for the declaration of nullity of the special
power of attorney allegedly executed by Maria in favor of Jao
and the nullity of the real estate mortgage executed by Jao
to CBC. They also asked for the issuance
of an injunctive writ and damages.
Eventually the two cases were heard jointly.
For their part, Jao
and CBC insist the signature of Maria in the special power of attorney was
authentic. In response, CBC filed a
counterclaim for the payment of the loans of Maria and damages. CBC also filed a cross-claim against Jao.
During trial the following facts were
established:
Sometime in 1981, Jao asked for
credit accommodation from petitioner for P300,000 to be secured by a
parcel of land under TCT No. T-30817 in P83,496.21 to Metrobank. Petitioner paid the Metrobank loan and the mortgage
in favor of Metrobank was cancelled.
Subsequently, petitioner granted Jao
a loan line of P1,000,000, secured by a mortgage on the lot covered by
TCT No. T-30817. He first borrowed P300,000. Under the same loan line, Jao availed of four
additional loans, P300,000 on P500,000 on P50,000
on P50,000 on
On
The loans of Maria and Jao matured but were unpaid. Thus, petitioner CBC prepared petitions for
extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties, naming Maria and Jao as defendants.
However, no foreclosure took place because the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27, upon filing of the Lagons,
issued a temporary restraining order preventing the holding of the auction
sale.[4]
Meanwhile, Jao
died while the cases were still on trial before Branch 27. Respondent Maria Lagon
died in 1995.
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of defendants China Banking Corporation (CBC) and Jao Bio Tong ordering:
(1)
the
dismissal of the complaint against both defendants and the cross-claim of
defendant CBC against Jao;
(2)
ordering
the plaintiff to pay to the defendant CBC the sum of P19,180,331.14 which
is the total amount of the plaintiff’s obligation under all the Promissory
Notes (Exhibits “118-CBC”, “119-CBC” and “120-CBC”) plus the late payment
penalty of 1/10 of 1% of the total amount due and the interest at 26% per annum
until all the said obligation is fully paid, or, if the plaintiff can not pay
this sum, and the penalty for late payment and the interest, ordering the sale
of the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-56875 and 11593 belonging to the plaintiff
and the foreclosure of the lot covered by OCT No. P-1228 also belonging to the
plaintiff and the proceeds thereof applied to the payment of the above-stated
obligation in its totality;
(3)
if after
the sale of the mortgaged property, there is still a deficiency on the
above-stated obligation, ordering the plaintiff to pay such deficiency;
(4)
ordering
the plaintiff to pay to the defendant bank CBC the sum of P50,000.00 as
and for attorney’s fees;
(5)
ordering
the plaintiff to pay to the defendant bank CBC the sum of P42,073.20 as
actual damages;
(6)
ordering
the plaintiff to pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[5]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals on
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. In this petition, petitioner raises the following issues:
I.
THE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE PRACTISING DOCUMENT EXAMINER, ATTY. DESIDERIO PAGUI, AS AGAINST THAT OF THE NBI QUESTIONED EXAMINER BIENVENIDO ALBACEA, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN SUPERIOR CREDENCE AND GREATER WEIGHT ON APPEAL, BECAUSE:
(a)
THE
TRIAL COURT IS IN A BETTER POSITION TO EXAMINE THE REAL EVIDENCE, AND OBSERVE
THE DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESSES, AND CAN THEREFORE DISCERN IF THEY ARE TELLING
THE TRUTH OR NOT.
(b)
THE
CREDIBILITY OF ATTY. DESIDERIO PAGUI AS AN EXPERT ON QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS WAS
NOT EVEN RAISED AS AN ISSUE IN THE APPEAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT MARIA LAGON.
(c)
IN
CONTRAST, THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY NBI DOCUMENT EXAMINER ALBACEA-
i.
USED STANDARDS
THAT WERE NOT ADEQUATE, APPROPRIATE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS;
ii. DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOUR (4) REQUIREMENTS
TO THE “PROPER CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SCIENTIFIC HANDWRITING IDENTIFICATION MAY
LEAD TO AN ACCURATE FINDING AND UNDER WHICH A HANDWRITING EXPERT MAY BE ABLE TO
RENDER AN ACCURATE OPINION.
(d)
NBI
DOCUMENT EXAMINER ALBACEA WAS IN FACT TECHNICALLY HIRED BY RESPONDENT LAGON
THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ARMANDO LAGON, BY THE DEFRAYAL OF HIS TRAVELLING,
LODGING AND OTHER EXPENSES.
II.
RESPONDENT MARIA LAGON IS ESTOPPED FROM
CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND THE REAL ESTATE
MORTGAGES, BECAUSE:
(a)
THROUGH
THE PREVIOUS AUTHORITY (SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY) TO DEFENDANT JAO BIO TONG TO
DEAL WITH “HER” PROPERTIES, RESPONDENT MARIA LAGON HELD OUT SAID DEFENDANT JAO
BIO TONG AS HER DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY-IN-FACT.
(b)
THE
PROCEEDS OF THE LOANS OBTAINED FROM PETITIONER CBC WERE USED TO PAY OFF THE
MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS OF RESPONDENT MARIA LAGON AND DEFENDANT JAO BIO TONG WITH
OTHER BANKING INSTITUTION.[6]
Simply stated, two issues are for resolution now:
(1) Are the special powers of attorney (SPAs) of Jao
spurious, given the allegation of forgery? (2) Are the real estate mortgages
executed by Jao valid? Both depend on the threshold issue of
credibility of respondent’s expert witness, Bienvenido
Albacea vis-à-vis petitioner’s expert witness, Desiderio A. Pagui.
Primarily,
what petitioner questions is the credibility of Albacea
as an expert witness. As petitioner
claims, which the trial court sustained, Atty. Pagui’s
testimony should be given more weight since the trial court was in a better
position to examine real and testimonial evidence. Besides, according to petitioner the
credibility of Atty. Pagui was never raised as an
issue in respondent’s appeal brief.
Moreover,
according to petitioner, respondent clothed Jao with
apparent authority as her agent, hence, she cannot now be permitted to deny the
authority of Jao to the prejudice of innocent third parties. In addition, petitioner points out that
respondent is estopped from questioning the validity of the mortgages because the
loans were used to pay the obligation of Maria Lagon with
other banks.
Respondent’s
representatives counter that Atty. Pagui was a biased witness because he was
hired by petitioner as a practicing private document examiner. Significantly, they point out that respondent
Maria was in the
Respondent’s
representatives also add that contrary to the claim that Maria benefited from the
loan, Maria’s estate ended up more heavily burdened since only a small portion
of the loan obtained by Jao were applied to Maria’s
obligations. Therefore, Maria’s
representatives should not be estopped from questioning the mortgages.
To begin
with, the issue of whether the SPAs are authentic is a question of fact, that
may be reviewed by this Court only under exceptional circumstances[7] like when,
as in this case, the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are at variance
with those of the trial court.[8]
We have
held in prior cases that generally, a notarized instrument is admissible in
evidence without further proof of its due execution and is conclusive as to the
truthfulness of its contents,[9] and has in
its favor the presumption of regularity.[10] However, this presumption is not absolute and
may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.[11]
In his
testimony, Jao admitted that the SPAs were not signed in the presence of the
notary public, but pre-signed by respondent in the
As the
respondent has repudiated the signatures in the SPAs and it was shown that she
did not acknowledge these before the notary public, the burden of proof to show
the SPAs’ authenticity, genuineness and due execution
lay with petitioner. In our view,
petitioner failed in this task. The
contrasting testimony of the experts on the authenticity of the signatures of
Maria could not benefit either side, considering the admission that the notarial requisites had not been adhered to.
Finally,
with respect to the credibility of the handwriting expert, courts are not bound
to give probative value or evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting
experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.[12] The courts may place whatever weight they
choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case.[13]
In this
case, resort to handwriting experts would not benefit either of the parties, considering
the conflicting testimonies of the expert witnesses and as earlier mentioned the
fact that the notarial requirements had not been met.
We are also not persuaded by petitioner’s argument
that respondent benefited from the loan.
Assuming that indeed part of the loan was used to pay for Maria’s own loan,
still the incontrovertible fact remains that the SPAs
were spurious and the mortgage unauthorized.
Moreover, petitioner could not be considered a mortgagee in good
faith. It had knowledge that respondent
was in the
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
Costs against
petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-18. Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Arturo D. Brion concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4] CA rollo,
p. 356.
[5] Rollo, p. 179.
[6]
[7] See Pastor v. Philippine National Bank,
G.R. No. 141316,
[8] See Serrano v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 123896,
[9] Lao v. Villones-Lao, G.R. No.
126777,
[10] Loyola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115734, February 23, 2000, 326 SCRA 285, 292-293.
[11] Basilio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
125935,
[12] Domingo v. Domingo, G.R. No. 150897,
[13] Ilao-Quianay
v. Mapile, G.R. No. 154087,
[14] Cavite
Development Bank v. Lim, G.R. No. 131679,
[15] Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of Estanislao Militar and Deogracias Militar, G.R. No. 164801, August 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 377, 388.