G.R. No. 184843 - Dycoco vs. Orina

Virgilio Dycoco allegedly executed a "Real Estate Mortgage with Special Power to Sell Mortgaged Property without Judicial Proceedings" (REM) on October 9, 1995, in favor of Adelaida Orina.
Dycoco’s attorneys-in-fact (the Grafilo brothers—Cristino, Jose, and Adolfo) claimed that his signature on the REM was forged.
Adelaida Orina asserted that the REM was executed to secure a debt of P250,000.00 owed by Dycoco, with a six-month repayment period at a five percent monthly interest rate.

The REM covered a parcel of land located in Sta. Cruz, Manila, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 105730 in Dycoco’s name.
Due to Dycoco’s alleged failure to pay his obligation, Adelaida extrajudicially foreclosed the REM.
With no redemption within the prescribed period, Dycoco’s TCT was cancelled and a new title (TCT No. 243525) was issued in Adelaida’s name.
The Grafilo brothers, who were caretakers/tenants of the property, refused to surrender possession, prompting Adelaida (joined by her husband) to initiate an ejectment case.

Upon receipt of notice of the ejectment complaint, Dycoco (represented by his attorneys-in-fact) filed a complaint for annulment of both the REM and the transfer certificate of title (Civil Case No. 01100522) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
The RTC, by its May 23, 2005 Decision, dismissed Dycoco’s complaint based on evidence that did not adequately establish his non-involvement in the mortgage execution.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal on November 29, 2007.
Dycoco then sought review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the earlier dismissals and the evidentiary basis adopted against him.

Dycoco’s attorneys-in-fact presented several documents to counter the forgery claim, including:

Dycoco’s U.S. Passport indicating his travel dates, purportedly to corroborate his absence from the Philippines on October 9, 1995.
A Special Power of Attorney and affidavit.
Personal checks and a certification from the RTC clerk regarding the absence of the REM from the court records.

The REM, as presented, was a mere photocopy exhibiting significant deficiencies—most notably an incomplete acknowledgment portion where the name of the person who appeared before the notary public was omitted.
Adelaida, maintaining the proper execution of the REM, relied on testimony from her attorney-in-fact and a photocopy of the document.

Evelyn Sagalongos, acting as Adelaida’s representative, testified that Dycoco was present at the signing of the REM on October 9, 1995.
Her testimony described the presence of multiple persons (including herself and Adelaida) in the notary public’s office during the execution, which conflicted with the travel dates indicated in Dycoco’s U.S. Passport.
The inconsistencies between the documentary evidence (e.g., the passport and the Special Power of Attorney) and the testimonial accounts led to compounded evidentiary issues on authenticity.

The RTC and appellate decisions questioned the probative value of the documentary evidence offered by Dycoco, particularly because he did not personally testify to establish the authenticity and due execution of the REM.
The incomplete notarization of the REM rendered it a private, rather than a public, document, thereby subjecting it to stricter evidentiary requirements under Section 20, Rule 132.
The court noted that, when the genuineness of signatures is at issue, the original document is indispensable for comparison—a requirement that was not met in this case.
The failure by respondents to produce original evidence or competent eyewitness testimony from the notary public or any witness exacerbated the uncertainties regarding the REM’s validity.

The Supreme Court ultimately granted Dycoco’s petition for review.
It set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision (and, by extension, the RTC’s ruling) that had dismissed Dycoco’s complaint.
The Court declared the REM null and void based on its improper notarization and failure to adhere to the necessary evidentiary standards.
The decision further ordered that a copy be furnished to the Register of Deeds of Manila for proper disposition, emphasizing the legal ramifications of defective notarization on real estate transactions.

Whether the evidence, particularly the presented photocopy of the REM, sufficiently proved the authenticity, due execution, and contents of the document.
Whether the alleged absence of Dycoco from the country on the date of execution was definitively established by his U.S. Passport and other documents.

Whether the documentary evidence (including the U.S. Passport, Special Power of Attorney, and other supporting documents) was admissible and met the requisite standards for proving the genuineness of Dycoco’s signature.
Whether the absence of the original REM and proper notarization invalidated its presumption as a public document, thus necessitating stricter proof under the rules for private documents.

Whether the contradictory testimony of Evelyn Sagalongos regarding Dycoco’s presence on the execution date undermined the authenticity of the REM.
Whether the respondents’ failure to present original documents or competent evidence (such as the testimony of a notary public or witnesses present during the execution) sufficiently vitiated the evidence against Dycoco.