ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138522. August 16, 1999]

HEIRS OF TEOFILO EUGENIO vs. JOSE BAUTISTA.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 16, 1999.

G.R. No. 138522 (Heirs of Teofilo Eugenio vs. Jose Bautista.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The facts, as they appear from the petition and its annexes, are as follows:

Aniceta Eugenio was the owner of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate to Title No. RO-307 of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. In 1986, she died leaving no direct or compulsory heirs. On April 6, 1989, Teofilo Eugenio executed an affidavit in which he stated that his father, Juan Eugenio, had purchased the subject land from Aniceta Eugenio on January 6, 1935 by virtue of a document entitled "Contrata de Vente Absoluta" which was to be registered upon Teofilo reaching the age of majority. On the basis of this affidavit, Teofilo Eugenio was able to obtain on February 6, 1991, TCT No. T-9611 in his name. Thereafter, he filed an ejectment suit against respondent Jose Bautista and the other occupants of the subject property, resulting in a decision in his favor.

To prevent his ejectment from the land in question, respondent Jose Bautista brought an action in the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan for the nullification of the "Contrata de Benta Absoluta", alleging that Aniceta Eugenio could not have executed the said document because she did not know how to read and rite. The Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory to which the document was referred for examination found that the document was artificially aged and that it was not compatible with the alleged date of its execution. Accordingly, the trial court nullified the said deed of absolute sale. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition.

After due consideration of the instant petition, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the same for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the decision of the trial court.

Petitioners contend that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the testimony of their witness, Atty. Desiderio Pagui, a retired NBI employee, who testified as to the genuineness of the document in question. On the contrary, the trial court and the appellate court correctly gave more weight to the testimony of Francisco Cruz of the Philippine National Police Crime laboratory considering the fact that the he is a public officer while Atty. Pagui is a private individual employed by the petitioners to espouse their cause. The courts' ruling are in accord with the holding in Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 153 (1978), that the testimony on a technical matter of a government expert as a witness complying with an official function must be preferred to that of a private individual in the absence of any showing that such government expert has been paid by an interested party or that he was motivated by bias or prejudice in reaching his conclusion. Indeed, in this case, the decision to refer the document in question to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination was made by agreement of the parties. Petitioners are this estopped from questioning the conclusion of such government agency just because it is adverse to them. Furthermore, the findings of the trial court on this point are conclusive in the absence of any showing that they are contrary to the evidence.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE