ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 122103 November 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO PABILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 138662-63 November 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO A. MADERA

  • G.R. No. 148126 November 10, 2003 - GEORGE T. VILLENA v. SPS. ANTONIO & NOEMI CHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262, 160263, 160277, 160292, 160295, 160310, 160318, 160342, 160343, 160360, 160365, 160370, 160376, 160392, 160397, 160403 & 160405 November 10, 2003 - ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR., ET AL. v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 6139 November 11, 2003 - DOMINADOR L. CABANILLA v. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1521 November 11, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. GREGORIO M. MALLARE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748 November 11, 2003 - JULIE C. PITNEY v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 126624 November 11, 2003 - OSCAR SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133250 November 11, 2003 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133547 & 133843 November 11, 2003 - HEIRS OF ANTONIO PAEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136397 November 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DAGAMI

  • G.R. No. 138612 November 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERCIVAL GONZA

  • G.R. Nos. 140388-91 November 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 144050 November 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON ANCHETA PUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144134 November 11, 2003 - MARIVELES SHIPYARD CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145431 November 11, 2003 - ROMEO PALOMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147800 November 11, 2003 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. TEOFILO C. RAMOS

  • G.R. Nos. 155560-62 November 11, 2003 - ALEEM AMERODDIN SARANGANI v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1513 November 12, 2003 - SPS. JAIME and PURIFICACION MORTA v. ANTONIO C. BAGAGÑAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119800 November 12, 2003 - FILIPINAS TEXTILE MILLS, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121177 November 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLIE ALMOGUERRA, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 121731-33 November 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARWIN DAVID

  • G.R. No. 138256 November 12, 2003 - CRESENCIANO DUREMDES v. AGUSTIN DUREMDES

  • G.R. Nos. 141724-27 November 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO ORANDE

  • G.R. No. 146094 November 12, 2003 - PHIL. TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. FELIPE D. CORTINA

  • G.R. No. 148407 November 12, 2003 - MA. LUISA OLARTE v. LEOCADIA NAYONA

  • G.R. No. 150633 November 12, 2003 - HEIRS OF DEMETRIO MELCHOR v. JULIO MELCHOR

  • A.M. No. P-03-1733 November 18, 2003 - ONOFRE M. MARANAN v. NECITAS A. ESPINELI

  • G.R. No. 127624 November 18, 2003 - BPI LEASING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 137147-48 November 18, 2003 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140513 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 141766 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER OSPIG

  • G.R. No. 142532 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY M. QUIZON

  • G.R. No. 144412 November 18, 2003 - ALLIED BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148401 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGINALD M. GUILLERMO

  • G.R. Nos. 148743-45 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FELIX MONTES

  • G.R. No. 148810 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. HEVER PAULINO

  • G.R. No. 152154 November 18, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156063 November 18, 2003 - MELECIO ALCALA, ET AL v. JOVENCIO VILLAR

  • O.C. A.M. No. 00-02 November 19, 2003 - ALBERTO V. GARONG v. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1519 November 19, 2003 - NELSONIDA T. ULAT-MARRERO v. ANTONIO B. TORIO, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1812 November 19, 2003 - PABLITO R. SORIA, ET AL. v. FRANKLYN A. VILLEGAS

  • G.R. No. 125784 November 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINDO VALLEJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128109 November 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENO ESPERAS

  • G.R. No. 144483 November 19, 2003 - STA. CATALINA COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152688 November 19, 2003 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • A.M. No. 2003-5-SC November 20, 2003 - VALENTINO V. RUGA v. EDWIN S. LIGOT

  • G.R. No. 126376 November 20, 2003 - SPS. BERNARDO BUENAVENTURA and CONSOLACION JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135441 November 20, 2003 - ROBERTO P. TOLENTINO v. DOLORES NATANAUAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 141316 November 20, 2003 - CLARA REYES PASTOR, ET AL v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147689 November 20, 2003 - ANG BAGONG BAYANI v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157216 November 20, 2003 - 246 CORP. v. REYNALDO B. DAWAY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1422 November 21, 2003 - NEGROS GRACE PHARMACY v. ALFREDO P. HILARIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1813 November 21, 2003 - ANTONIO D. SELUDO v. ANTONIO J. FINEZA

  • G.R. Nos. 135779-81 November 21, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIANO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 150983-84 November 21, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TALAVERA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1343 November 24, 2003 - ORLANDO T. MENDOZA v. ROSBERT M. TUQUERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135844-45 November 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. DOMINADOR ILUIS

  • G.R. No. 139255 November 24, 2003 - RAYMOND MICHAEL JACKSON v. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 139609 November 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EXEQUIEL MAHINAY

  • G.R. No. 147259 November 24, 2003 - RICARDO ALCANTARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148191 November 25, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SOLIDBANK CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 159486-88 November 25, 2003 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1610 November 27, 2003 - RAPHAEL B. YRASTORZA, SR. v. MICHAEL A. LATIZA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1741 November 27, 2003 - NORBERTO LOZADA, ET AL. v. LUIS J. ARRANZ

  • G.R. No. 123298 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO L. CALPITO

  • G.R. No. 134460 November 27, 2003 - AQUILINA ESTRELLA, ET AL. v. NILA ESPIRIDION

  • G.R. Nos. 136592-93 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO PANCHO

  • G.R. No. 137366 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MOLE

  • G.R. No. 141186 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL S. PULANCO

  • G.R. No. 149808 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 151858 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO T. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 151942 November 27, 2003 - SPS. GREGORIO GO and JUANA TAN GO v. JOHNSON Y. TONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156567 November 27, 2003 - JOSE RIMANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137598 November 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAYSON BERDIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140227 November 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERWIN T. OTAYDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143435-36 November 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX L. FLORES

  • G.R. No. 148305 November 28, 2003 - SPS. ROGELIO & CONCHITA JALIQUE v. SPS. EPIFANIO & JULIETA DANDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152080 November 28, 2003 - LORETTA P. DELA LLANA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155087 November 28, 2003 - EDUARDO T. SAYA-ANG, SR., ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157249 November 28, 2003 - HOMER T. SAQUILAYAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 145431   November 11, 2003 - ROMEO PALOMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 145431. November 11, 2003.]

    ROMEO PALOMA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, EDUARDO POBLACION, APOLINARIA PALOMA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, RENATO PANIZALES, JONATHAN TICAR, VICENTE PALOMA and THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), Respondents.

    R E S O L U T I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    In this petition for review, petitioner seeks to reverse and set aside the decision 1 dated June 16, 1994, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 30672 dismissing his special civil action for certiorari, and also its resolution dated September 20, 2000, denying his motion for reconsideration.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The factual antecedents of this petition are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On December 27, 1991, herein petitioner Romeo Paloma filed before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 27, several complaints for accion publiciana against (1) Eduardo Poblacion, Civil Case No. 20168; (2) Narina Paloma Vda. de Villanueva, Civil Case No. 20169; (3) Renato Panizales, Civil Case No. 20170; and (4) Jonathan Ticar, Civil Case No. 20171. 2 These cases were consolidated and jointly heard.

    Private respondents Apolinaria 3 Paloma Vda. de Villanueva together with Vicente Paloma were intervenors in Civil Cases Nos. 20168, 20170 and 20171. Vicente Paloma intervened in Civil Case No. 20169 as well.

    In his complaint, petitioner averred that he is the absolute and registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 61166 of the Registry of Deeds of Iloilo. He alleged that the subject property had been occupied by private respondents on his mere tolerance. According to petitioner, he had been repeatedly demanding from private respondents to vacate his property because he intends to develop and subdivide the property into residential lots which he eventually intends to sell. However, he said, his demands fell on deaf ears.

    In their respective answers, private respondents alleged, among others, that the Transfer Certificate of Title covering the subject property was obtained by petitioner through a falsified or forged deed of sale. They alleged that the signatures of the seller, Mercedes Padernilla, the late mother of petitioner and private respondents Villanueva and Paloma, on said document were forgeries.

    On September 25, 1992, private respondents filed a motion to refer to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) the questioned document, a deed of sale dated September 15, 1965, allegedly executed by Mercedes Padernilla in favor of the petitioner over the disputed property, for expert handwriting examination using as basis or specimen the signatures of Mercedes appearing in the pleadings of Civil Case No. 6618 entitled "Mercedes Padernilla v. Romeo Paloma." The motion was granted by the trial court in an order dated November 4, 1992. 4 Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but said motion was denied on February 8, 1993. 5

    With the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 30672 mainly on the ground that the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it issued the order to the NBI to use as basis or standard specimen the signature of Mercedes Padernilla in Civil Case No. 6618 for handwriting examination, without first establishing the genuineness and due execution of said signature.

    On June 16, 1994, the appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    At any rate, when the law makes use of the phrase "genuineness and due execution of the instrument", it means nothing more than that the instrument is not spurious, counterfeit or of different import on its case from the one executed (Bough v. Canterverios, 40 Phil. 213). The phrase "genuineness and due execution of the instrument" is conspicuous in its absence in the questioned deed of sale. Hence, in the case at bar, said deed or instrument may be considered spurious, if not falsified.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Moreover, it is now universally established that genuine writings or signatures which are "part of the records" may be compared by the Court with the disputed signature or writing (20 Am. Jur. 705). Consequently, the respondent Judge in this case correctly ruled that the signature of Mercedes Padernilla found in Civil Case No. 6618 should be treated as her standard specimen that will serve as the basis of comparison with the signature found in the questioned deed of sale by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

    ACCORDINGLY, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition for certiorari cannot be given due course, as it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. We make no pronouncement as to costs.

    SO ORDERED. 6

    Petitioner duly filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied on September 20, 2000. 7

    Hence, this petition where petitioner assigns the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CERTIORARI WAS NOT THE PROPER REMEDY OF PETITIONER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE HONORABLE QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE TRIAL COURT, CLEARLY ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION EQUIVALENT TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE GRANTED THE MOTION TO REFER TO NBI FOR EXPERT EXAMINATION THE DEED OF SALE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND HIS DECEASED MOTHER, MERCEDES PADERNILLA, WITHOUT FIRST ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE SIGNATURES OFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AS STANDARD OR SPECIMEN SIGNATURES OF MERCEDES PADERNILLA.

    (2) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE MAY BE CONSIDERED SPURIOUS, IF NOT FALSIFIED, BECAUSE "THE PHRASE ‘GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE INSTRUMENT’ IS CONSPICUOUS IN ITS ABSENCE IN THE QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE" .

    (3) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGED SIGNATURES OF MERCEDES PADERNILLA FOUND IN CIVIL CASE NO. 6618 SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE STANDARD OR SPECIMEN SIGNATURES IN THE EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNATURE OF MERCEDES PADERNILLA APPEARING ON THE QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY "PART OF THE RECORDS" .

    (4) THE ASSAILED DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN MOOTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 36, IN CIVIL CASE NOS. 20168 TO 20171, INCLUSIVE, DECLARING THE QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE TO BE VALID, EFFECTIVE, AND AUTHENTIC. 8

    At issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s order granting private respondents’ motion to refer the disputed signature of Mercedes Padernilla in the deed of sale to the NBI for handwriting examination, without first establishing the due execution and genuineness of the documents as well as the signatures offered by private respondents as standard or specimen signatures of Padernilla. Further, also at issue is whether the controversy raised before the appellate court has become moot.

    Petitioner contends that while he is not averse to referring the deed of sale for handwriting examination by the NBI to resolve the issue of forgery of Mercedes Padernilla’s signature in the deed of sale, it is only proper that the due execution and authenticity of the documents offered by private respondents and the genuineness of the alleged signatures of Padernilla appearing in the deed of quitclaim, must first be established. He claims that the genuineness of a signature, pursuant to Section 22, 9 Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, is established either: (a) when the signature is admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence respecting the handwriting is offered (petitioner in this case); or (b) when the signature is proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. He maintains that private respondents failed to show, through any of these modes, that the purported specimen signatures they offered were genuine. Petitioner further argues that the assailed decision and resolution of the appellate court may have been mooted by the decision of the trial court on March 29, 1999 in Civil Cases Nos. 20168 to 20171, upholding the validity and authenticity of the questioned deed of sale.

    Private respondents, for their part, argue that it is now universally established that genuine writings or signatures which are part of the records, may be compared by the court with a disputed writing or signature. They also claim that signatures of Padernilla appearing in the deed of quitclaim were attached to the motion for handwriting examination. These signatures are in notarial documents and are found in the records of Civil Case No. 6618. According to private respondents, these facts proved to the satisfaction of the trial court that said signatures are genuine and should thus be treated as standard specimen signatures of Mercedes Padernilla. Private respondents further contend that the order requiring handwriting examination was not mooted by the trial court’s subsequent decision upholding the validity and authenticity of the questioned deed of sale. Said decision is not yet final, they said, as it was elevated by way of appeal to the Court of Appeals on May 24, 2000. 10

    At the outset, we note that the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order and dismissed petitioner’s special civil action in its decision dated June 16, 1994. We also note that on March 29, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision in Civil Cases Nos. 20168 to 20171 declaring, inter alia, that the deed of sale between petitioner and Mercedes Padernilla, as valid and effective. It further held that the purported signatures of Padernilla in the deed of quitclaim was of doubtful authenticity. 11

    In our view, the issue of whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it granted the motion for handwriting examination, using as basis the purported signatures of Padernilla which have not been previously established to be genuine, has become moot and academic. Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value. 12 Moreover, the appellate court was asked merely to determine whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted petitioner’s motion. The genuineness and due execution of the questioned deed of sale is a distinct matter. The issue of genuineness of the signature appearing in the deed of sale is properly the subject of private respondents’ appeal of the trial court’s decision before the Court of Appeals.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for being moot.

    SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Bellosillo, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 44-47.

    2. Id. at 49-66.

    3. Also known as "Narina."cralaw virtua1aw library

    4. Rollo, pp. 84-86.

    5. Id. at 95-97.

    6. Id. at 46-47.

    7. Id. at 48.

    8. Id. at 22.

    9. SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, 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. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a 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.

    10. Pending appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69360.

    11. Rollo, pp. 153-155.

    12. Garcia v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 121139, 12 July 1996, 258 SCRA 754, 757.

    G.R. No. 145431   November 11, 2003 - ROMEO PALOMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED