Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
JOVINA DABON VDA. DE MENDEZ, |
|
G.R. No. 174937 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* |
|
- versus- |
|
Acting Chairperson, |
|
|
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VILLARAMA, JR., and |
|
COURT OF APPEALS
and |
|
PERLAS-BERNABE,** JJ. |
|
SPOUSES MINEO and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
June
13, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
[C]ertiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal x
x x.[1]
This Petition
for Certiorari[2]
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision[3]
dated May 8, 2006 and the Resolution[4]
dated September 12, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 76612.
Factual
Antecedents
On June 19, 1995, petitioner Jovina
Dabon Vda. De Mendez filed a Complaint[5]
for Nullity of Deed of Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title, Tax Declaration and
other relevant documents, and Reconveyance of property with damages, docketed
as Civil Case No. MAN-2445, against respondent-spouses Mineo and Trinidad Dabon
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Petitioner, in
her complaint, alleged that she is the registered owner of a paraphernal
property situated in Barangay Ibabao,
Mandaue City, containing an area of 174 square meters, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 9408;[6]
that she never sold the subject property to respondent-spouses;[7]
and that her signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale[8]
dated July 15, 1982 was forged.[9] Petitioner further claimed that sometime in
1982, due to financial difficulties and the illness of her youngest son, she
mortgaged her property to Banco Cebuano to secure a P20,000.00 loan.[10] When her property was about to be foreclosed
by the bank, she borrowed P20,000.00 from her first cousin, respondent
Mineo.[11] Respondent Mineo agreed and a few days later
asked his sister, Gloria Singson (Gloria), to deliver the money to the bank.[12] After paying the bank, Gloria went to
petitioners house and asked her to sign some papers, including a receipt
confirming the loan.[13]
Later, petitioners eldest daughter went to respondent Mineo to pay the P20,000.00
loan.[14] He, however, refused to accept the same,
demanding instead P50,000.00.[15]
Respondent-spouses
filed their Answer,[16]
contending that there was a valid sale as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute
Sale signed by petitioner on July 15, 1982 before Notary Public Bienvenido N.
Mabanto, Jr. (Notary Public Mabanto).[17]
They narrated that after petitioner
signed the Deed of Absolute Sale, they paid the amount of P20,000.00 to
the bank in order to prevent the foreclosure of the subject property;[18]
and that since then, they have been paying the taxes for the said property.[19]
During
trial, petitioner presented the testimony of Romeo Varona, a Document Examiner
of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Service, who affirmed
that petitioners signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 15, 1982 is
a forgery.[20]
To refute this, respondent Mineo, in addition to his testimony, offered the
testimonies of Gloria, who was a witness to the execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale, and Notary Public Mabanto before whom the deed was acknowledged.[21]
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
On July 31,
2002, the RTC rendered a Decision[22]
in favor of respondent- spouses. It
ruled that petitioners cause of action had prescribed since an action for
reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust
prescribes in 10 years.[23] As to the issue of forgery, the RTC gave more
credence to the testimony of Notary Public Mabanto, who stated under oath that
petitioner appeared before him to affirm the execution of the Deed of Absolute
Sale, than that of petitioners expert witness, who found the signature in the
Deed of Absolute Sale to be a forgery.[24]
The RTC disregarded the finding of the
expert witness because it was based merely on conjectures and observations.[25]
It pointed out that during the hearing,
the expert witness admitted that a persons signature varies according to his
position when affixing the same.[26]
Thus, the RTC decreed:
Foregoing
considered[,] the Court rules in favor of Defendant[s] both [on] grounds of Prescription
and its findings that the Deed of Absolute Sale was duly executed.
SO ORDERED.[27]
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
Both parties appealed the Decision.
On May 8, 2006,
the CA denied both appeals. Not only did the CA agree with the RTC that
there was no forgery,[28]
but it also ruled that petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of
authenticity and due execution of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.[29]
With regard to respondent-spouses
appeal, the CA found them not entitled to moral and exemplary damages as well
as attorneys fees considering that the same were never discussed by the RTC.[30]
Thus, the CA disposed:
WHEREFORE,
prescinding
from all the foregoing, both appeals are DENIED. The decision dated July 31,
2002 of the court a quo in Civil Case no. Man-2445 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against plaintiff-appellant.
SO ORDERED.[31]
Petitioner moved
for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a Resolution[32]
dated September 12, 2006.
Issues
Hence, this
petition raising the following issues:
WHETHER RESPONDENT [CA],
IN DENYING PETITIONERS APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT
AND LIKEWISE IN DENYING PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SAID
DECISION, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION,
OR IN EXCESS THEREOF:
1.
IN NOT PASSING UPON PETITIONERS FIRST ASSIGNED ERROR IN
HER APPEAL THAT PETITIONERS ACTION HAD NOT PRESCRIBED IN LIGHT OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS ADMISSION THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN IN ACTUAL, CONTINUOUS AND
PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND PAYING TAXES THEREFOR UP TO THE PRESENT
THEREBY TOTALLY DISREGARDING RELEVANT LAW[S] AND JURISPRUDENCE;
2.
IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE
QUESTIONED DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE WAS DULY EXECUTED DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING AND
ABUNDANT EXPERT EVIDENCE CLEARLY PROVING THAT THE ALLEGED SIGNATURE OF
PETITIONER THEREON IS A FORGERY, THEREBY DISREGARDING RELEVANT LAWS AND
JURISPRUDENCE;
3.
IN NOT RULING THAT AN IMPLIED TRUST WAS CREATED ARISING
FROM THE FRAUDULENT PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY THEREBY DISREGARDING RELEVANT LAWS
AND JURISPRUDENCE;
4.
IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE NOTARY
PUBLICS TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE QUESTIONED DEED OF
5.
FINALLY, IN DENYING PETITIONERS APPEAL AND IN AFFIRMING
THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.[33]
Petitioners
Arguments
Petitioner
claims that she is the absolute and lawful owner of the subject property, which
she inherited from her father.[34]
She insists that she has been in actual,
continuous, and peaceful possession of the same and has been paying taxes
thereon.[35] Thus, being in possession of the subject
property, her action to recover title and possession of the same is
imprescriptible.[36] Petitioner further claims that she did not
sell her property to respondent Mineo but only borrowed money from him.[37] She contends that the CA erred in
disregarding the testimony of the expert witness, who found her signature in
the Deed of Absolute Sale to be a forgery,[38]
and in relying on the self-serving statements of the notary public who, as
expected, would affirm the genuineness of the disputed Deed of Absolute Sale so
as not to incriminate himself.[39]
Respondent-spouses
Arguments
The petition
must fail.
Petitioner availed of the wrong remedy
Under the Rules
of Court, the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a judgment, final order, or
resolution of the CA is to file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45
within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution appealed
from.[43]
Obviously,
petitioner, in filing a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, availed of the wrong remedy.
Unlike a
petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the
original case, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original
or independent action[44]
based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[45]
It will lie only if there is no appeal
or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[46]
As such, it cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially if such loss
or lapse was due to ones own negligence or error in the choice of remedies.[47]
In this case,
the remedy of appeal was available; thus, the filing of petition for certiorari was inapt. Petitioner should have filed a petition under
Rule 45 within 15 days from receipt of the Resolution dated September 12, 2006,
denying her motion for reconsideration.
While in certain
cases we have considered petitions erroneously filed under Rule 65 as filed
under Rule 45, we cannot do so in this case because the petition was filed
beyond the 15-day reglementary
period.[48] Records show that petitioner filed her
petition 33 days after receipt of the Resolution
dated September 12, 2006.[49]
In contrast,
although there are cases when certiorari
may be allowed despite the availability of appeal, such as: (a) when public
welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader
interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void;
and (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial
authority,[50]
no such persuasive reason exists in this case. And even if we were to consider
this case as an exception, the petition must still fail as no grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction was committed by the
CA in affirming the ruling of the RTC in favor of respondent-spouses. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as
the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or
personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of
power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined
by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.[51]
In fact, whether
we treat the petition as an appeal or as a special civil action for certiorari, the petition must be
dismissed as the core issue of whether petitioners signature in the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated July 15, 1982 was forged, is a question of fact not allowed
in both instances.[52]
A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the
testimony of handwriting experts
As we have often
said, forgery is not presumed but must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence by the party alleging it.[53]
It is established by comparing the
alleged forged signature with the genuine signatures.[54]
Considering the technical nature of the procedure in examining forged
documents, handwriting experts are often offered as expert witnesses.[55]
But although their testimonies are useful, resort to these experts is not
mandatory or indispensable because a finding of forgery does not depend
entirely on their testimonies.[56]
Judges must also exercise independent judgment in determining the authenticity
or genuineness of the signatures in question, and not rely merely on the
testimonies of handwriting experts.[57]
In this case,
both the RTC and the CA found that there was no forgery. The RTC, in upholding the genuineness,
authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 15,
1982, took into account the testimony of the expert witness who admitted that
although the letter J in Exhibit I-1 differs from the Js in Exhibits
I-2 to I-6, they are nevertheless similar;[58]
and that there is a possibility that the Js in Exhibits I-1 to I-7 were
done by one and the same person.[59] In affirming the finding of the RTC, the CA
noted that there is a visible general resemblance between these signatures
even if the standard signatures were executed 12 years later.[60]
More credence
was also given by the RTC and the CA to the testimony of the notary public who
personally saw petitioner sign the Deed of Absolute Sale. No doubt, direct evidence, such as the
testimony of the notary public, outweighs the testimony of the expert witness,
which, at best, is considered indirect or circumstantial evidence.[61]
As a final note,
let it be emphasized that while the court has the power to relax procedural
rules for persuasive and weighty reasons, this does not mean that [they] are
to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have
prejudiced a partys substantive rights.[62]
Just like any other rule, [procedural rules] are required to be followed
except for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed.[63]
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed
Decision dated May 8, 2006 and the Resolution dated September 12, 2006 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 76612 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate
Justice |
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
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 Courts Division.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
Acting
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
* Per Special Order No. 1226 dated May 30,
2012.
**
Per Special Order No. 1227 dated May
30, 2012.
[1] Badillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131903, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 435, 451.
[2] Rollo, pp. 3-342 with Annexes A to EE inclusive.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43] Romullo v. Samahang Magkakapitbahay ng Bayanihan Compound Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 180687, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 411, 418.
[44] Chua
v.
[45] Beluso v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 180711, June 22, 2010, 621 SCRA 450, 456.
[46]
[47] Teh v. Tan, G.R. No. 181956, November 22, 2010, 635 SCRA 593, 604.
[48] Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Company Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167938, February 19, 2009, 580 SCRA 1, 10.
[49] Petitioner received the Resolution dated September 12, 2006 on September 22, 2006, and filed her Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court on October 25, 2006.
[50] Chua
v.
[51] Beluso v. Commission on Elections, supra note 45.
[52] Viaje v. Pamintel, 515 Phil. 398, 406 (2006); and Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd./Nam Hyum Kim v. Court of Appeals, 521 Phil. 224, 245 (2006).
[53] Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 787, 793 (2004).
[54] Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 753,763 (1998).
[55]
[56]
[57] Bautista v. Court of Appeals, supra note 53.
[58] Rollo, p. 220.
[59]
[60]
[61] Bautista v. Court of Appeals, supra note 53 at 793-794.
[62] Athena Computers, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 156905, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 343, 351.
[63]