ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
SPOUSES LEON AND
LOLITA ESTACIO,
G.R.
No.
149250
-versus- DR. ERNESTO
JARANILLA,
D E C I S I O N AZCUNA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The instant petition for review on certiorari seeks the reversal of the Decision[1] and Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals dated June 10, 1999 and May 31, 2001, which affirmed with modification the Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Branch 18, in Civil Case No. 3779.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred This case stemmed from
an action for the annulment of deeds of conveyance and certificates of
title over a parcel of land located in Barrio Bulatoc, Pagadian City,
known
as Lot No. 202, Pls-119 (HV-81514). The factual antecedents, as
summarized
by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Discovering the
unauthorized
conveyance of her parcel of land upon her return to the Philippines in
1992, Josefina Jaranilla sent a letter to the Registrar of Deeds of
Zamboanga
on March 24, 1993, the contents of which are reproduced, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
March 24, 1993
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Josefina Jaranilla died on December 19, 1994, and her only son and heir, Ernesto Jaranilla, represented by his duly appointed Attorney-in-Fact, Rosalia Frias Muñoz, filed a complaint for declaration of nullity and/or annulment of transfer certificates of titles, deeds and conveyances, recovery of possession, and damages x x x Contending that the Special Power of Attorney utilized by Lolita F. Estacio was a falsified document, plaintiff alleged, among other matters, that the subsequent transfers of the land in litigation were, for said reason alone, already null and void; and that the inadequate consideration, as well as the inordinate haste at which the land was transferred, indicates that the defendants conspired with one another in fraudulently depriving him and his predecessors-in-interest of the ownership thereof x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In the answers they separately filed after service of summons upon them, defendants Luis A. Bersales, Jr. and Jorge T. Almonte, claimed to be innocent purchasers for value and in good faith. Contending that plaintiff had no cause of action against them, they both prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and the grant of their counterclaims for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and the costs of the suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Joined by her husband, Leon Estacio, Jr., who was impleaded in the suit as a nominal defendant, Lolita F. Estacio, on the other hand, specifically denied the material allegations of the complaint in an Answer dated June 28, 1996. As affirmative defenses, she claimed that, having merely received the assailed powers of attorney from the decedent's sister, Remedios Jaranilla, she had no hand in the preparation of the documents, much less in the alleged forgery of the signatures therein; that she relied on the assurance of Remedios Jaranilla regarding the authenticity of the said documents, and transferred the subject land in favor of defendant Luis A. Bersales, Jr. in good faith x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Defendants thereupon prayed for the dismissal of the complainant and sought indemnity for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, as well as litigation and other expenses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred At the pre-trial conference, the parties admitted the pieces of documentary evidence attached to their pleadings and agreed to dispense with the further presentation of evidence and to submit the case on the merits.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The trial court, finding
the special powers of attorney used by petitioner Lolita as "highly
questionable,
spurious and self-evidently fabricated," nullified the original sale to
Atty. Bersales. It however found that good faith had intervened in the
subsequent transaction; hence, it upheld Atty. Almonte's title to the
property.
Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeals' ruling, petitioner-spouses Leon and Lolita Estacio now come before this Court raising two issues for our review. First, they question the assailed Decision and Resolution for having been decided contrary to law on the main contention that respondent miserably failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the finding of forgery. Second, they assert that respondent's failure to prove the claim of forgery renders the order for them to pay damages devoid of legal basis.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The petition is without merit.cralaw:red In an attempt to cast doubt on the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, petitioners make much of the fact that respondent did not personally testify nor introduce any witness to prove the alleged forgery. They aver that as a consequence of such lapse, respondent has failed to discharge the required burden of proof.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Petitioners' argument is not tenable. As shown from the records, the finding of forgery was based on a comparison of the deceased's purported signatures on the assailed Special Powers of Attorney and the latter's signature appearing on a private document. Indeed, the factual conclusion of forgery could have drawn more support from other corroborating evidence such as testimonies of handwriting experts or witnesses familiar with the deceased's handwriting. It must be emphasized, however, that the lack of such evidence is the result of the agreement of petitioners and respondent to submit the case for decision on the basis of their pleadings and documents. Petitioners would now have this Court tilt the scale in their favor on the ground that respondent had failed to offer testimonial evidence to prove his case. There is, therefore, a clear attempt by petitioners to capitalize on what was a mutual agreement to dispense with a trial on the merits. The same, however, is unavailing, because the lack of testimonial evidence by no means disturbs the finding of forgery.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred It bears stressing that the trial court may validly determine forgery from its own independent examination of the documentary evidence at hand. This the trial court judge can do without necessarily resorting to experts, especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimen of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones.[8]Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting "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."[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred This Court notes that the Special Powers of Attorney being questioned constitute public documents, having been acknowledged before a notary public. As such, their executions are entitled to a presumption of regularity.[10] But, just like any other presumption, this is not conclusive, but is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred After a perusal of the
records of the case, this Court finds basis for the finding of manifest
discrepancy between the signatures of the deceased on the questioned
Special
Powers of Attorney, and the signature on the submitted specimen. The
records
support the finding that the signatures on the assailed Special Powers
of Attorney do not appear to have been executed by the late Josefina
Jaranilla.
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First, the trial court found that the deceased was not in the country from 1987 to 1992, thereby foreclosing the possibility that the deceased executed the Special Power of Attorney in 1991, which was purportedly notarized in Cebu City in the same year. Said fact was duly established by petitioners' own unconditional admission in their verified Answer, stated in this wise:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred 4. That defendants ADMIT the allegation of paragraph 4 of the complaint.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred In the absence of evidence that no such statement was made or that the same was made through palpable mistake, the foregoing admission is conclusive and does not require proof.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Second, petitioners'
use of the second Special Power of Attorney, which was obviously
intended
for curative purposes, only served to underscore the patent defect of
the
first transaction. It is further worth noting that the lame attempt to
ratify the original sale eventually proved to be futile. As aptly found
by the Court of Appeals:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All the foregoing circumstances consequently cast doubt on the integrity, genuineness, and veracity of the questioned public instruments. Petitioners, therefore, cannot take refuge under the presumption of regularity of the public documents, as this has been clearly rebutted in this case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred This Court likewise sustains the imposition of civil damages against petitioners. Petitioner Lolita's claim that she only received the Special Powers of Attorney from the deceased's sister through mail is self-serving, to say the least. The utter lack of supporting proof prevents the Court from accepting such claim as satisfactory explanation of her possession of the forged documents. Moreover, even assuming the veracity thereof, the records are bereft of any showing that would indicate that she directly communicated with the late Josefina Jaranilla to confirm the authorization the latter allegedly issued in her favor. Given that the documents were allegedly mailed from Cebu not by the principal herself, but by the latter's sister, prudence should have cautioned petitioner Lolita into verifying the due execution of the documents. This she ought to have done, especially considering that the late Josefina Jaranilla could have mailed the documents herself, if it were true that the latter was in Cebu then, as petitioners would have this Court believe. Clearly, it was petitioner Lolita's use of the spurious documents without diligently verifying their source and authenticity, which gave rise to the subsequent fraudulent conveyances of the subject property to the damage and prejudice of the deceased and her heirs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred As correctly pointed out by respondent,[16] findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when these coincide with the factual findings of the trial court.[17] This rule admits of exceptions as when there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support, or are clearly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[18] This Court finds no such grave abuse and no palpable error in the appreciation of facts and application of law by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred No costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago and Carpio, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, pp. 22–40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions - Back to Home |
|