FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219563. June 27, 2018.]
ELISA D. ESPINO AND THE ESTATE OF MELECIO ESPINO, JR., petitioners,vs. DIVINA C. ESPINO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 27, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219563 — Elisa D. Espino and the Estate of Melecio Espino, Jr. vs. Divina C. Espino
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated January 23, 2015 and Resolution 3 dated July 22, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 99424 which set aside the Decision 4 dated June 29, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City in Civil Case No. 2010-0081.
Factual Antecedents
Respondent Divina C. Espino (Divina) and the late Melecio Espino, Jr., (Melecio, Jr.) are siblings. Sometime in July 23, 2001, Divina mortgaged a parcel of land located at Burgos Street, Dagupan City with an area of 90 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No. 74101 (subject property) to BHF Rural Bank in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). 5 ETHIDa
Divina failed to pay her obligation, so she offered an arrangement with the bank to pay the loan on installment basis, to which the bank agreed. When Melecio, Jr. and Elisa D. Espino (Elisa) (spouses Espino) heard about her predicament, they offered to help in the payment of the loan. Divina accepted the offer and to reimburse any financial assistance. Spouses Espino paid the loan without knowledge and consent of Divina. 6
After the death of Melecio, Jr. on June 25, 2008, Divina discovered the existence of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 2, 2007 involving the subject property, which she allegedly executed in favor of spouses Espino. Divina also found that TCT No. 74101, registered in her name was canceled and a new TCT No. 85833 was issued in the names of spouses Espino. Spouses Espino likewise declared the subject property and the residential house standing thereon in their names under Tax Declaration Nos. 4230901 and 23-770-1, respectively. 7
Divina demanded for the revocation of the Deed of Absolute Sale but spouses Espino refused to heed her demands. On March 1, 2010, Divina received a letter for her to vacate the subject property by March 30, 2010 otherwise the house would be demolished. 8
Thus, Divina filed a Complaint 9 for declaration of nullity of TCT No. 85833; Tax Declaration Nos. 4230901 and 23-770-1, injunction, and damages against spouses Espino before the RTC of Dagupan City.
Divina alleged that there was no sale between them, and neither did she execute nor sign the Deed of Absolute Sale, hence it was void. Divina also alleged that she did not appear before notary public Juan C. Siapno, Jr., of San Carlos City who notarized and acknowledged the sale. 10
Spouses Espino for their part argued that the Deed of Absolute Sale was valid and authentic. 11 In fact, Divina herself executed and voluntarily signed the Deed of Absolute Sale; her siblings witnessed the execution of the document; and Divina personally appeared before the notary public. 12 Spouses Espino also argued that they gave certain amounts as advance payments to Divina and her siblings, which formed part of the consideration of the sale. 13 They further argued that Divina remained in the possession of the subject property by their tolerance and claimed that as new owners of the subject property they are now entitled to its possession. 14
On June 29, 2012, the RTC rendered a Decision 15 in favor spouses Espino. The RTC ruled that Divina failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that her signature appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged and that she never intended to sell the subject property to her brother, Melecio, Jr. and his wife Elisa. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision, provides: cSEDTC
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the case at bench for lack of legal and factual bases.
With costs against [Divina].
So Ordered.16
Divina appealed before the CA. The CA, in its Decision 17 dated January 23, 2015 reversed the RTC decision and ruled that Divina was able to show that her alleged signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged. The CA declared that the Deed of Absolute Sale, TCT, and Tax Declarations were void, the fallo reads:
We SETASIDE the Decision dated 29 June 2012 issued by the [RTC], Branch 44, Dagupan City in Civil Case No. 2010-0081, and rule as follows: 1) DECLARE the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 02 October 2007 VOID; 2) DECLARE [TCT] No. 85833 and Tax Declaration Numbers 4230901 and 23-7701 in the name of [spouses Espino] VOID; 3) REINSTATE [TCT] No. 74101 in the name of [Divina].
IT IS SO ORDERED.18
Elisa and the Estate of Melecio, Jr. (collectively, the petitioners) filed a Motion for Reconsideration 19 before the CA but the same was denied in a Resolution 20 dated July 22, 2015.
Hence, this petition.
Ruling of the Court
The petition has no merit.
Petitioners failed to show any reversible error on the part of the CA for Us to exercise Our discretionary power of review.
The Court resolves to deny the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed decision and resolution. Even if We consider the factual issues raised, the findings of fact of the CA still sufficiently support that the alleged signature of Divina appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged. SDAaTC
With regard to the issue on forgery, in Gepulle-Garbo v. Spouses Garabato, 21 the Court held that:
[F]orgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged. 22 (Citations omitted)
After examining the documents submitted by the parties on the supposed signatures of Divina and comparing them with her accepted standard, We conclude that the questioned signatures were forgeries. A scrutiny of the specimen signatures submitted by the parties would reveal that there are marked differences between Divina's signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale vis-à-vis the specimen signatures in the Real Estate Mortgage, Verification and Certification of Non-forum Shopping and Judicial Affidavit. The most telling difference is that the specimen signature on the Real Estate Mortgage reads "DCEspino" 23 while the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale reads "Divina Espino." 24 Also, there is a discrepancy between the strokes in the questioned signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale, 25 which reads "Espio" and appears that the letter "n" in Divina's Surname, Espino is not visible as compared to her Verification and Certification of Non-forum Shopping 26 and Judicial Affidavit, 27 which reads "Espino" and the letter "n" was clearly obvious to the naked eye. As such, based on the documents presented, the samples and the questioned signature in the instant case were written or signed by two different persons.
This Court aptly discussed that resort to experts is not mandatory or indispensable, judges must also exercise independent judgment in determining the authenticity or genuineness of the signatures in question, and not rely merely on the testimonies of handwriting experts. The case of Mendoza v. Fermin, 28 is instructive on the matter, to wit:
While we recognize that the technical nature of the procedure in examining forged documents calls for handwriting experts, resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable, because a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on their testimonies. Judges must also exercise independent judgment in determining the authenticity or genuineness of the signatures in question, and not rely merely on the testimonies of handwriting experts. The doctrine in Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, is instructive, to wit: acEHCD
Due to the technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of forged documents, the expertise of questioned document examiners is usually helpful. However, resort to questioned document examiners is not mandatory and while probably useful, they are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. Although such testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny. The judge cannot rely on the mere testimony of the handwriting expert. In the case of Gamido vs. Court of Appeals x x x, the Court held that the authenticity of signatures.
". . . is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions concerning, e.g., quantum physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute matters of a highly technical nature. The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness of a questioned signature is certainly much less compelling upon a judge than an opinion rendered by a specialist on a highly technical issue."
A judge must therefore conduct an independent examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity and this cannot be done without the original copy being produced in court. 29 (Citations omitted, emphasis and italics in the original)
More so, the forgery was established by evidence other than the documents itself, as testified by Jose and as correctly observed by the CA, thus:
A comparison of the signature appearing on the Real Estate Mortgage, and the signature appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale, readily shows the dissimilarity. While the signature on the Real Estate Mortgage reads "DCEspino," the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale reads "Divina Espino." Due to this clear dissimilarity, there is no need to resort to technical rules, such as the presentation of expert opinion on the matter of handwriting. The allegation of forgery by [Divina] was corroborated by Jose's testimony. Both [Divina] and Jose testified that [Divina] did not sign the Deed of Absolute Sale, and that [Divina] did not go to San Carlos City on 02 October 2007.
In addition, the circumstances leading to the alleged sale between the parties are also suspect. There is a manifest absence of any written instrument showing that [Divina], owner of the subject property and named mortgagor, authorized [spouses Espino] to redeem the subject property from the Bank, or to assume the mortgage obligation. Neither was there any instrument showing that the parties entered into an agreement where [spouses Espino] would assume the payment of the mortgage obligation for the specific consideration that ownership over the subject property would be transferred to them. Also, the belated execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale shows that prior to the full payment of the mortgage obligation, the parties did not intend a sale of the subject property, but only its redemption from the Bank. 30 (Emphasis ours) SDHTEC
Furthermore, when the dissimilarity between the genuine and false specimens of writing is visible to the naked eye, resort to technical rules is no longer necessary, as aptly discussed in the case of Mendoza, viz.:
[W]hen the dissimilarity between the genuine and false specimens of writing is visible to the naked eye, and would not ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer, resort to technical rules is no longer necessary and the instrument may be stricken off for being spurious. In other words, when so established and is conspicuously evident from its appearance, the opinion of handwriting experts on the forged document is no longer necessary. 31 (Citations omitted)
Thus, We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the appellate court as the same was sufficiently supported by the evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 23, 2015 and Resolution dated July 22, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 99424 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-De Castro, J.,on official leave;Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-25.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Stephen C. Cruz; id. at 30-39.
3.Id. at 50-51.
4. Rendered by Judge Genoveva Coching-Maramba; id. at 105-113.
5.Id. at 105-106.
6.Id. at 106.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 95-96.
9.Id. at 93-99.
10.Id. at 106.
11.Id. at 102.
12.Id. at 101.
13.Id. at 103.
14.Id. at 104.
15.Id. at 105-113.
16.Id. at 113.
17.Id. at 30-39.
18.Id. at 38.
19.Id. at 40-48.
20.Id. at 50-51.
21. 750 Phil. 846 (2015).
22.Id. at 855-856.
23.Rollo, p. 115 (dorsal portion).
24.Id. at 87.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 117.
27.Id. at 122.
28. 738 Phil. 429 (2014).
29.Id. at 441-442.
30.Rollo, p. 37.
31.Supra note 28, at 442.