Case Digest (G.R. No. L-31494)
Facts:
Pastor Lopez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31494, January 23, 1978, First Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Pastor Lopez sought review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan in an action filed by Jesus R. Martin to recover two parcels of land and to declare void a deed of sale dated May 18, 1948. Martin, the plaintiff below, alleged he was the grandson and sole heir of the late Gervacio Resoso and that the lands and a house had been in continuous possession of Gervacio until his death; he charged that the deed conveying parcel described in paragraph 3 to Lopez was fictitious and that Lopez had taken possession after Gervacio’s death in 1956.Martin filed the complaint on July 11, 1957 in the CFI of Pangasinan. Lopez answered on August 12, 1957 asserting ownership under the May 18, 1948 deed from Gervacio Resoso for parcel 3 and a separate deed from Zacarias Resoso for parcel 7, claiming payment, tax declarations in his name, and that he constructed the house on parcel 3. At trial Lopez presented the notary public Judge Simeon Rico and two subscribing witnesses who testified to the genuineness of the deed. Martin produced Antonio Rotor, an NBI questioned‑documents examiner, who concluded the signature of Gervacio Resoso on the deed was not genuine.
The CFI rendered judgment on June 8, 1963 declaring the May 18, 1948 Deed of Absolute Sale (Document No. 189) false and apocryphal, ordered restoration and various sums for value, rental and periodic payments, adjudged ownership of the respective parcels, ordered Lopez to vacate, and assessed costs. The CFI, however, found Lopez validly purchased parcel 7 from Zacarias Resoso. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 34109‑R), which after reviewing the NBI expert’s report and making its own comparison, affirmed the CFI’s finding that the signature was a forgery. Lopez moved for reconsideration; the Court of Appeals denied relief in a minute resolution dated December 13, 1969.
Lopez then filed the present recourse to the Supreme Court by appeal/certiorari from the Court of Appeals’ decision, assigning seven errors challenging (1) the overthrow of the presumption of genuineness of public documents, (2) the asserted priority of subscribing witnesses in handwriting proof, (3) disregard of the notary and subscribing witnesses’ testimony, (4) reliance on expert opinion as weak evidence, (5) acceptance of...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in finding the Deed of Absolute Sale of May 18, 1948 to be a forgery and in thereby overturning the presumption of genuineness of a public document?
- Does Sec. 23, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Court give subscribing witnesses priority over other means of proving handwriting such that the notary and subscribing witnesses’ testimony must have prevailed?
- Is the opinion testimony of a handwriting expert inherently the weakest form of evidence and therefore insufficient here?
- Were the appellate and trial courts justified in considering the alleged irregularities in payment, delayed registration, inconsistent possession claims, and grossly inadequate consideration as indicia ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)