Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
MARIANO RIVERA and |
|
G.R. No. 156249 |
|
JOSE RIVERA, |
|
|
|
Petitioners, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
- versus - |
|
Chairperson, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
*CALLEJO, SR., |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and |
|
EMERITO AQUINO TURIANO |
|
NACHURA, JJ. |
|
and REGISTER OF DEEDS |
|
|
|
OF |
|
|
|
METRO |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
March 7,
2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court questioning the
Decision[1]
dated September 28, 2001 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
No. 59070, which reversed the Decision dated February 2, 1997 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258, Parañaque City, docketed as LRC Case No. 94-0053;
and the CA Resolution[2]
dated November 21, 2002 which denied the petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration.
This case originated from a Complaint
for Cancellation of Encumbrance on Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-5667
with Claim for Damages filed by Mariano Rivera and Jose Rivera (petitioners)
against Emerito Aquino Turiano (private respondent).
The facts of the
case, as found by the RTC and summarized by the CA, are as follows:
In dispute is a parcel of land
situated in San Dionisio,
It appears that a certain Manuel
Pelaez obtained a loan from [petitioner] Mariano Rivera in the amount of two
hundred forty thousand pesos (P240,000.00) on
It was only in 1991 that [petitioner] Mariano
tried to cause the registration of the Deed of Mortgage before the Register of
Deeds of Parañaque [when he] learned that [private respondent] executed an
affidavit of loss dated
Claiming that the affidavit of loss
was maliciously and fraudulently executed, [petitioners] instituted the present
action.
Upon the other hand, [private
respondent] asserted that his mother, Paz Aquino, owned a parcel of land
covered by TCT No. S-5667. After her
death on
[Private respondent] claimed that the
signature appearing in the Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by
one Paz Aquino in favor of Manuel Pelaez does not belong to his mother because
he is familiar with her signature.
The trial court in its Order, dated
On
WHEREFORE, viewed in the light of the foregoing, the Register of Deeds of Parañaque, Metro Manila is hereby ordered to cancel the annotation appearing under Entry No. 4938[5] on Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-5667 and that the Real Estate Mortgage with the accompanying Special Power of Attorney entered into by the plaintiffs and Attorney-In-Fact, Manuel Pelaez be registered and annotated at the back of the aforesaid title after payment of its lawful fees.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The
RTC held that the petitioners were able to show that the photocopy of the
Special Power of Attorney (Exhibits “D” and “3”) amounted to secondary evidence
and that the said exhibit was positively identified by no less than Atty. Ramon
N. Nalipay, Jr., the one who notarized its duplicate original on January 29,
1987; that as proof thereof he brought along with him a copy of his notarial
register for 1987 showing therein the entry under Doc. No. 425, Page No. 86,
Book No. 3; that his testimony was not tainted by any cloud of suspicion; that
the petitioners are mortgagees in good faith; that the private respondent merely
submitted self-serving and uncorroborated allegations that the Special Power of
Attorney executed by Paz Aquino in favor of Manuel Pelaez is a forgery; that
while the signatures of Paz Aquino as they appear on the Contract of Lease and
Deed of Absolute Sale – documents proffered by private respondent for purposes
of comparison – reveal through naked eyes the differences in the signatures,
this fact alone, however, is not sufficient to sustain the defense that the
signature appearing in the Special Power of Attorney is a forgery; that the
mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof of
forgery; that forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence and
whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same; that it is necessary to
determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different
personality or is only an inevitable variation in the genuine writing of the
same writer; and that it is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is
the result of skillful imitation or habitual and characteristic resemblance
which naturally appears in genuine writing.
Private
respondent appealed to the CA. On
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is REVERSED and a new one is entered:
(a) Dismissing the petition.
(b) Declaring null and void the Special Power of Attorney in favor of Manuel Pelaez and the Deed of Mortgage executed by Manuel Pelaez in favor of [petitioners] Mariano and Jose Rivera.
(c) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Parañaque to cancel the annotations appearing on TCT No. S-5667 under Entry numbers 6984 on the Special Power of Attorney executed in favor of Manuel Pelaez and 6985 [sic] or the Deed of Mortgage executed by Manuel Pelaez in favor of [the petitioners].
(d) Ordering [petitioners] to surrender possession of the original owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. S-5667 to [private respondent].
SO ORDERED.[7]
The
CA held that the differences in the signature of Paz Aquino on the Special
Power of Attorney as compared to her signatures on the Contract of Lease
(Exhibit “4”) and Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit “5”) are clearly discernible
through the naked eye, and, hence, the Special Power of Attorney is a forgery;
that it is not necessary for handwriting experts to testify as to the
authenticity of the signature because the question of forgery is not a highly
technical issue; and, in view of these reasons, the mortgage allegedly executed
by Manuel Pelaez in favor of the petitioners is void.
On
The
petitioners are now before this Court with the following assignment of errors:
(A)
the
honorable court of appeals erred in declaring null and void the special power
of attorney executed by paz aquino in favor of manuel pelaez, and the deed of
mortgage executed by manuel pelaez in favor of petitioners mariano rivera and
jose rivera;
(B)
The
honorable court of appeals erred in ordering the cancellation of annotation on
tct no. s-5667 under entry 6984 on the special power of attorney executed by
paz aquino in favor of manuel pelaez, and under entry no. 6985 on the deed of
mortgage executed by manuel pelaez in favor of petitioners mariano rivera and jose
rivera;
(C)
The
honorable court of appeals erred in ordering petitioners mariano rivera and
jose rivera to surrender possession of the original owner’s duplicate copy of
tct no. s-5667 to private respondent emerito aquino turiano.[8]
The Court grants the petition.
The
principal question is whether the signature of the vendor, Paz Aquino, is a
forgery, the resolution of which lays to rest all the other issues.
While
the CA held that the differences in the signatures of Paz Aquino and that of
the questioned document are “clearly discernible” through “a mere ocular
inspection,” this observation, by itself, is no good reason to conclude that
the document is forged.
This Court has held that an
allegation of forgery and a perfunctory comparison of the signatures by
themselves cannot support the claim of forgery, as forgery cannot be presumed
and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the burden
of proof lies in the party alleging forgery.[9] Even in cases where the alleged forged
signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance
therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient.[10] It must be stressed that the mere variance of
the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged.[11]
To determine forgery, the Court in Ladignon v. Court of Appeals[12]
laid down the following criteria:
The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind, and significance of this resemblance as well as of the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality, or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of a more or less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered the whole problem of identification is solved.[13]
In the instant case, the foregoing criteria were not
met. Private respondent failed to
discharge his burden of proof. He failed
to demonstrate that the signature of Paz Aquino on the Special Power of
Attorney is a forgery.
In his attempt to prove the forgery,
private respondent made a comparison of the signatures of Paz Aquino by
proffering the Contract of Lease dated August 16, 1982 (Exhibit “4”)
executed between Paz Aquino and Calixto Morandarte, the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
June 13, 1972 (Exhibit “5”) executed between Paz Aquino and herein private
respondent, and the subject Special Power of Attorney dated January 29, 1987
(Exhibit “D”; Exhibit “3”).
While
it is true that the testimonies of handwriting experts are not necessary, however,
pursuant to the criteria enunciated in Ladignon, the private respondent
must not only show material differences between or among the signatures. In addition, (1) he must demonstrate the
extent, kind, and significance of the variation; (2) he must prove that the
variation is due to the operation of a different personality and not merely an
expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same
writer; and (3) he must show that the resemblance is a result of a more or less
skillful imitation and not merely a habitual and characteristic resemblance
which naturally appears in a genuine writing.
The
private respondent, at best, was only able to show the variance of the
signatures of Paz Aquino. The Court must
point out that the dates of the foregoing instruments purportedly signed
by Paz Aquino, i.e., 1972, 1982, and 1987, are considerably so spaced
apart to possibly account for the variance of the signatures to be expected and
inevitable due to the passage of time.
As stated, to prove forgery, a
perfunctory comparison of the signatures by themselves is not enough, as
forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and
convincing evidence in accordance with the standards in Ladignon, among
other cases. Without such demonstration,
the CA committed a serious error in concluding that fraud had been perpetrated.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of
the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of
the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
(On leave)
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
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, it is hereby
certified 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.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* On leave.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now Presiding Justice), with Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (now retired) and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurring; CA rollo, pp. 52-61.
[2]
[3] Under Entry No. 4938.
[4] Rollo, pp. 6-9.
[5] Affidavit of Loss.
[6] Rollo, p. 54.
[7]
[8]
[9]
JN Development Corporation v.
Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, G.R. No. 151060
and Cruz v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, G.R.
No. 151311,
[10]
[11]
[12] Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, supra note 10.
[13]