SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241726. January 7, 2019.]
SPOUSES BENEDICTO AND DIONICIA LEGASPI, 1petitioners,vs. BANK OF COMMERCE, ELEONITO VALENCIA, MA. ANGELITA "JOLLET" VALENCIA, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS, TANAUAN BRANCH, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 January 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241726 (Spouses Benedicto and Dionicia Legaspiv. Bank of Commerce, Eleonito Valencia, Ma. Angelita "Jollet" Valencia, and the Register of Deeds for the Province of Batangas, Tanauan Branch)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 2 and AFFIRM the April 25, 2018 Decision 3 and the August 24, 2018 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 106871 for failure of petitioners Spouses Benedicto and Dionicia Legaspi (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the validity of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage 5 (REM) and the genuineness of petitioners' signatures therein.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners failed to discharge the burden to prove that their signatures in the Deed of REM were forged. 6 For one, the copies of their passports and their employers' certifications which they submitted to show that they were not in the Philippines at the time of the execution of the Deed of REM, were found inadmissible for being mere photocopies and lacking the necessary authentication. 7 It is well-settled that when the contents are the subject of the inquiry, only the original will suffice, unless any of the exceptions are attending — which has not been shown to be the case here. 8 For another, the Certification 9 issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, which stated that petitioners neither arrived nor departed from the Philippines throughout 2004, was refused credence due to petitioners' own admission that they were in the Philippines on April 22, 2004 10 to sign the Deed of REM. While an official document does enjoy a presumption of regularity, 11 petitioners' own admission casts doubt on its contents.
On the other hand, the CA also correctly held that, preponderant evidence were presented to show that petitioners were in the Philippines at the time of the execution of the Deed of REM, to wit: (a) the bank manager testified that petitioners signed the Deed of REM on November 12, 2004 in his presence; 12 and (b) the notary public testified that petitioners personally appeared before her for the notarization of the Deed of REM. 13 Settled is the rule that factual findings of the lower courts are binding upon this Court, save for exceptional circumstances, 14 which do not obtain in this case.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. "Dionisia Legaspi" in some parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 35-51.
3.Id. at 15-29. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
4.Id. at 30-33.
5.Id. at 80-81.
6. See id. at 20.
7. See id. at 24-25.
8. See Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lagman, 669 Phil. 205, 215 (2011); Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
9. Not attached to the rollo.
10. See rollo, pp. 20-21.
11. See Heirs of Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro, 583 Phil. 540, 560 (2008).
12. See rollo, pp. 21-22.
13. See id. at 27-28.
14. See Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Mendoza, 807 Phil. 640, 647 (2017), citing Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784, 789 (2011).