Case Digest (G.R. No. 1465)
Facts:
- Alfredo Chanco, administrator of Maximo Madrilejos' estate, is the plaintiff and appellant.
- Anacleta Madrilejos and others are the defendants and appellees.
- The case centers on Exhibit No. 3, a receipt allegedly executed by Maximo Madrilejos on March 1, 1875, in Azagara, Philippines.
- The trial court initially deemed the document authentic.
- The plaintiff introduced newly discovered evidence questioning the document's authenticity.
- A commissioner investigated the paper's manufacture date, leading to testimony from Joaquin Samurac, manager of "La Hispana Americana" paper factory.
- Samurac stated the paper was produced after March 1, 1875, and the watermarks were not used until 1880.
- Additional evidence indicated the paper was chemically treated to appear older, and the signature was likely forged.
- The trial judge expressed doubt about the document's authenticity but ultimately sided with the initial ruling.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that the document was not genuine and was a forgery.
- The newly discovered evidence was sufficient to establish the document's fraudulent nature beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court reversed the trial court's judgment, ordering the plaintiff ad...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court's decision relied on the evaluation of newly discovered evidence, including expert testimony on the paper's manufacture date.
- The court noted that the watermarks were not in use until years after the alleged execution date, indicating the document could not have been created at that time.
- Evidence suggested the paper had been artificially aged, and the signature was likely forged.
- The initial ruling by the trial court was based on witness credibility re...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 1465)
Facts:
The case involves Alfredo Chanco, the administrator of the estate of Maximo Madrilejos, as the plaintiff and appellant, against Anacleta Madrilejos and others as defendants and appellees. The events leading to this case began with a document, referred to as Exhibit No. 3, which was claimed to be a receipt executed by Maximo Madrilejos on March 1, 1875, in Azagara, Philippines. The trial court initially found this document to be genuine. However, upon appeal, the plaintiff sought to introduce newly discovered evidence regarding the authenticity of the paper on which the receipt was written. A commissioner was appointed to investigate the date of manufacture of the paper, leading to the examination of Joaquin Samurac, the manager of a paper factory named "La Hispana Americana." Samurac testified that the paper was not produced until after March 1, 1875, and that the watermarks on the paper were exclusive to his factory, which did not start using them until 1880. Additional evidence suggested that the paper had been chemically treated to appear older, and that the signature of Maximo Madrilejos was likely a forgery. The trial court had previously ruled in favor of the authenticity of the document, but the newly discovered evidence raised significant doubts about its legitimacy. The trial judge expressed reluctance in his decision, acknowledging the weight of the evidence against the document's authe...