Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 156249 : July 04, 2007] MARIANO RIVERA AND JOSE RIVERA V. EMERITO AQUINO TURIANO AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAÑAQUE CITY, METRO MANILA:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated 04 July 2007:

G.R. No. 156249 - (Mariano Rivera and Jose Rivera v. Emerito Aquino Turiano and Register of Deeds of Para�aque City, Metro Manila)


The Court, in its Decision dated March 7, 2007, reversed the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 28, 2001 and the CA Resolution dated November 21, 2002, in effect affirming the Decision dated February 2, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC held that the signature of Paz Aquino on the Special Power of Attorney is not a forgery, and ordered (1) the cancellation of the annotation appearing under Entry No. 4938 on Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-5667; and, (2) the registration and annotation of the Real Estate Mortgage with the accompanying Special Power of Attorney entered into by the petitioners and Attorney-in-fact Manuel Pelaez at the back of the aforesaid title upon payment of lawful fees.

Submitted now for resolution is private respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.

First, private respondent contends that only questions of law are reviewable by the Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and that although there are exceptions to this rule, the petitioners failed to justify a review of the factual findings and, hence, the Court should not have recalibrated the evidence on record.

The Court is not persuaded. There are at least two exceptions in the instant case which warranted a review of the factual findings of the courts a quo, namely, (a) the CA judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; and, (b) the findings of facts of the courts a quo are conflicting.^[1]

Second, private respondent insists that the signature of Paz Aquino on the Special Power of Attorney is a forgery. In particular, he argues that Paz Aquino was not present during the notarization of the foregoing document; that there is clear and convincing evidence on record which should overthrow the authenticity of the facts contained in the notarial document; that the "strict application" of the criteria in determining forgery laid down in the Decision can only be done by handwriting experts, which, according to jurisprudence, is not mandatory; and, that the petitioners failed to adhere to the best evidence rule since they failed to submit the original of the Special Power of Attorney.

Again, private respondent failed to convince the Court to reconsider its Decision.

As to the question whether the petitioners were able to satisfy the best evidence rule, suffice it to say that this issue was raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the CA, and, hence, is barred by estoppel. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.^[2] Moreover, the RTC held that the petitioners had submitted secondary evidence, namely, the photocopy of the Special Power of Attorney, an exhibit positively identified by the notary who notarized its duplicate original.

As to the contention that the application of the rules on determining forgery as enunciated in the Decision can only be done by handwriting experts, the Court made no such conclusion, nor does it follow that the application of such criteria is reserved only to those skilled in processes of identification. The private respondent simply failed to apply the criteria in attempting to show forgery.

The rest of the matters reiterate basically the same arguments raised in private respondent's pleadings which had been laid to rest by the Decision dated March 7, 2007 and the Court finds no cogent reason that warrants a reconsideration thereof.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

(Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, ponente, with Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., as additional member)

Endnotes:

---

^[1] See Heirs of Dicman v. Cari�o, G.R. No. 146459, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 240, 262.

^[2] Cruz v. Fernando, G.R. No. 145470, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 173, 182-183.

Back to Home | Back to Main