Case Digest (G.R. No. 46153)
Facts:
Pedro de Leon v. Felipe Juyco, G.R. No. 46153. June 06, 1942, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellant Pedro de Leon sued defendant-appellee Felipe Juyco in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga seeking to compel redemption of two parcels of land which De Leon alleged he had only ceded as security for indebtedness. The underlying history included an earlier civil action (C.F.I. Pampanga Civil No. 4767; G.R. No. 38432) in which a mortgage in favor of Carmen de los Reyes had been enforced. To satisfy that judgment and an alleged indebtedness to Juyco, De Leon executed a deed of cession on August 30, 1934 (Exhibit Q) conveying his interest in the lands to Juyco; that deed contained no express reservation of a right to redeem.
After Carmen assigned her judgment to Juyco, Juyco caused the sheriff to advertise and sell the parcels; third-party claims by Juan and Pedro Salvador led Juyco to present an instrument (marked Exhibit V-1) to the sheriff described as an "Escritura de Exclusion" excluding the Salvador portions from the sale. The version of Exhibit V-1 later appearing in the record, however, contained language purporting to state that De Leon had ceded the parcels to Juyco "como garantia de la deuda" payable in four years and that De Leon would continue possession until payment—language that did not appear in the version said to have been offered at trial.
The trial court found the deed of August 30, 1934 (Exhibit Q) to be an outright transfer and, on that basis, absolved Juyco of the complaint. De Leon appealed to the Supreme Court, and on February 28, 1940 the Supreme Court reversed the trial court, declaring De Leon entitled to repurchase the land within three months upon payment of P30,250. After that decision, Juyco filed a verified motion alleging that (1) Exhibit V-1 as appearing in the record had been falsified and substituted, and (2) parts of the transcript of stenographic notes and other documents had been altered to conceal that falsification; he sought an investigation, criminal proceedings and disbarment of those responsible.
The Supreme Court ordered the motion acted upon with the case on the merits and later appointed the Clerk as commissioner to receive evidence on the alleged falsifications. The investigation adduced testimony and documentary exhibits: (a) De Leon had filed an amended answer (Exhibit FF, fifteen pages) but had served on counsel for Juyco only a seven‑page copy (Exhibit EE) from which key quotations from the transcript and other papers were omitted; (b) substantial discrepancies existed between the certified copy of Exhibit V-1 in the record and the original/sheriff’s duplicate actually used to exclude the Salvador portions; (c) notarial entries, the date on the clerk's certification, documentary stamps and the notarial book entries showed alterations; (d) pages in an earlier memorandum filed in the lower court (Exhibit DD) were falsified in the versions De Leon relied on; and (e) the stenographic transcript attached to the record (Exhibit I) did not accord with the stenographer’s notes and a carbon copy (Exhibit H). Counsel for Juyco, Claro M. Recto, testified to having received Exhibit EE in his office and later delivering it to the Chief Justice when he discovered discrepancies.
De Leon denied knowledge of Exhibit EE and generally denied the allegations but offered no explanation for several critical falsifications. The stenographer, the sheriff’s signed duplicate, clerk’s employees, notary records and other witnesses corroborated that the record had been tampered with and that signatures and certifications were inconsistent with original records. The Supreme Court concl...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the appellant, Pedro de Leon, falsify and forge Exhibit V-1, portions of the transcript of stenographic notes, and other documents, and serve a false copy of his amended answer, thereby committing fraud upon the Court?
- If such falsification and fraud were established, should the Supreme Court set aside its prior decision reversing the trial court and instead affirm the trial court's judgment?
- On the substantive merits, was the deed of cession executed by De Leon an outright transfer or mer...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)