Case Digest (G.R. No. 127857)
Facts:
Pastor de Jesus v. Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127857, June 20, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Pastor de Jesus (Petitioner) sought review of the Court of Appeals decision that affirmed in part and modified the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabuk, Kalinga-Apayao, Branch 25 decision in Special Civil Action No. 44, involving an Extrajudicial Settlement with Simultaneous Sale of Rights and Interests in the Estate of a Deceased Person (the Deed of Sale) dated 13 September 1979.Respondents are the legitimate children of Fermin de Jesus — Ronaldo, Alicia, Florante, Nelson, Bellaflor, Mario, Arnolfo, Jocelyn and Godfrey, all surnamed De Jesus (represented by Ronaldo) — who, together with Consolacion Resurreccion de Jesus Abando (Consolacion), trace title to a parcel (about five hectares, Tax Declaration No. 16100) inherited from Juan de Jesus. The title, however, remained registered in the name of Juan de Jesus; Juan died in 1964 and his son Fermin died on 24 September 1979.
Respondents filed a petition for partition on 3 June 1991, claiming that their father Fermin’s share in the property was never validly transferred; Petitioner countered that Fermin (together with Consolacion) had sold his rights to Petitioner by the 13 September 1979 Deed of Sale for ₱10,000, and thus respondents were not entitled to partition. The document was notarized but unregistered in the Registry of Deeds.
The RTC ordered the questioned Deed of Sale submitted to the NBI for handwriting examination and proceeded to trial. Respondents presented lay witnesses familiar with Fermin’s handwriting and the NBI handwriting expert Zenaida Torres; Petitioner presented Consolacion, counsel Marcos Diasen Jr., and other witnesses. The RTC found the signatures of Fermin to be forged, declared the Deed of Sale null and void, directed partition of the property among the heirs, appointed commissioners for partition, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs (Decision dated 28 October 1994).
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) arguing that the courts below improperly credited the handwriting expert and other evidence over the testimony of the notary and lay witnesses who testified to due execution. The CA affirmed the RTC insofar as it invalidated the Deed of Sale with respect to Fermin’s one‑third share, but modified the RTC’s ruling by limiting nullity to Fermin’s share only (Decision dated 11 September 1996). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Resolution dated 15 January 1997).
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court contendi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: May the Supreme Court, in a Rule 45 petition, reexamine the factual findings of the courts below regarding alleged forgery of signatures on a notarized instrument?
- Substantive: Was the presumption of regularity of the notarized Deed of Sale rebutted so as to justify declaring the Deed null and void, and if so, should the nullity extend beyond Ferm...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)