Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

This Petition for Review on Certiorari¹ seeks to set aside: 1) the February 23, 2012 Decision² of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 90854 which reversed and set aside the November 15, 2007 Order³ of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City, Branch 16 in Civil Case No. N-7469, and reinstated the RTC's June 8, 2007 Decision;⁴ and 2) the CA's July 12, 2012 Resolution⁵ denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.⁶

Factual Antecedents

Corazon Afable Salud (Corazon) was the registered owner of a parcel of land with building (the Silver Coin Bldg.) in Marseilla Street, Rosario, Cavite (the subject property), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-19394 (TCT RT-19394).⁷ On May 30, 1998 or at the age of 80, she passed away leaving behind as her heirs her two adopted children, petitioner Deogracias A. Salud (Deogracias) and Carmencita Salud Condol (Carmencita). Deogracias is married to Napola Y. Salud (Napola); Joseph Y. Salud (Joseph) and Joe Vincent Y. Salud (Vincent) are their children.

On January 8,2004, Deogracias, Napola, Joseph and Vincent instituted Civil Case No. N-7469 against respondent Rural Bank of Salinas, Inc. (RBSI), Carmencita, the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC-Cavite City, and the Cavite Register of Deeds. In their Complaint⁸ for Declaration of Nullity of Deeds of Mortgage, Special Power of Attorney, Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, Certificate of Sale and Damages, with injunctive relief, they essentially claimed that in 2000, Deogracias and Napola learned that Carmencita obtained a P2 million loan from RBSI secured by three Deeds of Mortgage⁹ over the subject property executed by Carmencita on August 20, October 8 and October 31, 1996; that RBSI granted the loan on the basis of a pro forma bank Special Power of Attorney¹⁰ (August 20 SPA) purportedly executed and signed by Corazon on August 20, 1996, specifically authorizing Carmencita to utilize the subject property as security for any loan/s obtained by the latter from RBSI; that they immediately informed RBSI President and Manager Teodoro G. Salud (Teodoro) who is their close relative that Corazon never authorized Carmencita to mortgage the subject property, and that Corazon's signature on the August 20 SPA was a forgery; that they showed Teodoro another special power of attorney (SPA) dated August 23, 1996¹¹ executed by Corazon which contained her true and genuine signature, and which authorized Deogracias to 1) specifically collect the rentals from tenants of the Silver Coin Bldg. and another building, 2) represent Corazon in any transaction with said tenants and the utility companies, and 3) execute and sign any paper or document relating to the tenants and utility companies; that in 1990, the subject property was duly constituted as their family home as inscribed in TCT RT-19394;¹² that for Carmencita's failure to pay her loan obligation, the subject property was unduly foreclosed upon and sold to RBSI in 2002; that the foreclosure process was defective in that a) notice of extrajudicial sale was not given to Corazon, b) the notice of sale was not posted in a conspicuous place, and c) the certificate of posting was executed only after the auction sale;¹³ that it is evident from the Promissory Notes¹⁴ executed by Carmencita that the loan she secured from RBSI is her sole obligation and responsibility, and Corazon did not obtain any benefit or advantage therefrom; that RBSI is in possession of the certificate of title to the subject property, and refused to surrender the same despite demand; and that the defendants were acting with malice and bad faith in committing and perpetrating a forgery. Petitioners thus prayed that injunctive relief be issued to enjoin RBSI from consolidating title; that the mortgage deeds, August 20 SPA, and foreclosure and sale proceedings be nullified and voided; that RBSI be ordered to surrender TCT RT-19394 to them; and that P1 million as moral damages, P250,000.00 as exemplary damages, P300,000.00 as attorney's fees plus appearance fees, P50,000.00 as litigation expenses, and costs be awarded to them.

In its Answer, RBSI essentially alleged that Carmencita was duly authorized by Corazon to secure a loan and mortgage the subject property in August 1996; that the proceeds of the loan was used to repair Corazon's 10-door apartment building in Makati and to pay for her medical and hospital expenses; and that Corazon's signature on the questioned August 20 SPA was genuine and true.

On January 8, 2004, or after the filing of the Complaint, a 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued enjoining the Cavite Register of Deeds from acting on RBSI's application for consolidation of ownership and from canceling TCT RT-19394, The TRO was extended until January 28, 2004.

After Civil Case No. N-7469 was raffled to Branch 16, the application for injunctive relief was heard. On January 27, 2004, the RTC issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

At the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed that the only issue to be resolved in the case is whether the signature of Corazon appearing on the August 20 SPA was genuine, and that the August 20 SPA shall be subjected to examination by a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) handwriting expert whose finding shall be binding upon them.¹⁵

On April 29, 2005, the designated NBI Documents Examiner, Jennifer Dominguez (Dominguez), issued Questioned Document Report No. 231-405 (NBI report) with the conclusion that the questioned signature of Corazon on the August 20 SPA and her standard signatures on sample documents submitted for comparison "were not written by one and the same person."¹⁶ The NBI report was based on 19 sample signatures submitted by petitioners, but one of the two that were submitted by RBSI was disregarded by Dominguez.¹⁷

During trial, Deogracias admitted that the signature appearing on one of the sample documents submitted by RBSI tagged as sample "S-D-2" and also marked as Exhibit "5-A" for RBSI was affixed by Corazon.¹⁸

Napola testified on the issue of damages and attorney's fees.¹⁹

For the defense, Teodoro testified among others that Corazon has been a borrower of RBSI even prior to 1996; that in 1996, he was approached by Corazon and Carmencita who indicated their desire to apply for another loan with the subject property as collateral; that Corazon asked him if she can allow Carmencita to be the borrower so that she would not have to keep going to the bank; that he later informed Corazon that the RBSI board of directors agreed to approve her loan application; that one week thereafter or on August 20, 1996, Corazon and Carmencita returned and filled out a P1 million loan application; that Corazon signed the August 20 SPA in his presence; that thereafter, he directed the bank's loan supervisor to process the necessary loan documents and have the same notarized; that later on, Deogracias approached him on several occasions and signified his intention to pay the loan but he was unable to do so and instead, Deogracias filed the instant case; and that RBSI was compelled to hire legal counsel to prosecute Civil Case No. N-7469.²⁰

Arty. Gregorio M. Trias (Arty. Trias), the notary public who notarized the August 20 SPA, testified that on August 20, 1996, Corazon appeared before him to have the August 20 SPA notarized although when the said document was brought to him the same was already signed by Corazon; that he knew Corazon because in the past he notarized documents signed by her; and that when he notarized the August 20 SPA, he did not inquire whether the signature thereon was Corazon's nor did he ask whether she understood what the document meant.²¹

Dominguez, the NBI Document Examiner, testified and essentially reiterated her original finding that there exist significant differences between Corazon's questioned signature on the August 20 SPA and the standard sample signatures submitted for comparison, and that her signature on the August 20 SPA and the sample documents submitted were not written by one and the same person.²² At the same time, she also admitted that the signature on RBSI's "S-D-2" or Exhibit "5-A" and that appearing on the questioned August 20 SPA could have been written by one and the same person.²³

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On June 8, 2007, the RTC issued its Decision, dismissing the complaint, viz.:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

As a general rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. In the examination of forged documents, the expertise of questioned documents examiners is not mandatory and while probably useful, they are indispensable [sic]²⁴ in examining or comparing handwriting. Hence, a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. x x x

In the instant case, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and fraud. As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was physically present at the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof, the testimony of Dominguez constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best. x x x Teodoro Salud, the witness to the special power of attorney confirmed the genuineness, authenticity and due execution thereof. Said witness having been physically present to see the decedent Corazon x x x affix her signature to the questioned document, the weight of evidence preponderates in favor of defendants.

x x x x

Back to Home | Back to Main