Case Digest (G.R. No. 179323)
Facts:
This case involves a parcel of land with an area of 6,951 square meters located in Balonguis, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-25464. The respondent, Marcelino D. Garcia (Garcia), was the registered owner of the property. On May 26, 1992, a deed of pacto de retro sale was allegedly executed by Garcia in favor of Constancio Manzano, the predecessor-in-interest and brother of the petitioner, Vicente Manzano, Jr. (Vicente), for the amount of P80,500.00, granting Garcia the right to repurchase the property within three months. Constancio Manzano died on July 12, 1992, and the property was adjudicated to his heirs, with Vicente appointed the administrator of the intestate estate. Garcia did not redeem the property within the specified period, prompting Vicente to file a petition for consolidation of ownership (Civil Case No. 93-610). Garcia opposed, claiming the deed was a forgery since he and his wife were in the USA from June 1, 19Case Digest (G.R. No. 179323)
Facts:
- Parties and Property Involved
- The case involves a parcel of land located in Balonguis, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City with an area of 6,951 square meters.
- The property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-25464 issued in the name of respondent Marcelino D. Garcia.
- Vicente Manzano, Jr. (petitioner) is the brother of Constancio Manzano, the predecessor-in-interest.
- Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale
- On May 26, 1992, a deed of pacto de retro sale was allegedly executed by Garcia in favor of Constancio Manzano for P80,500.00.
- Under the contract, Garcia reserved the right to repurchase the property at the same price within three months.
- Constancio Manzano died on July 12, 1992, and his properties were adjudicated to his heirs, with Vicente as administrator.
- Legal Actions
- Garcia did not redeem the property within the stipulated period.
- Vicente initiated a petition for consolidation of ownership (Civil Case No. 93-610).
- Garcia opposed, alleging forgery of the pacto de retro sale; he claimed he and his wife were in the USA from June 1, 1988, to November 14, 1992.
- Garcia filed for annulment of the pacto de retro sale and recovery of ownership with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 94-097).
- Trial Proceedings
- Both cases were consolidated before the trial court.
- Vicente presented TCT and Tax Declaration to prove execution of the pacto de retro sale.
- Garcia testified being abroad during the execution and that signatures were not his; showed passport and driver’s license with dissimilar signatures.
- The notary, Atty. Demosthenes Mediante, Jr., and a witness, Perla Babano, testified that the person who executed the deed was not Garcia.
- Trial Court Decision
- Trial court ruled in favor of Vicente, declaring the pacto de retro sale legal and valid, dismissing Garcia’s case.
- Court found Garcia failed to prove forgery without an expert witness.
- The testimonies of the notary and witness were doubted due to inconsistent observations.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ruling.
- Declared the pacto de retro sale void ab initio.
- Ordered Vicente to return the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT to Garcia.
- Held that no expert witness was needed to prove forgery; Garcia’s testimony plus signature comparison was sufficient.
- The presumption of regularity of the notarized deed was overcome by the notary’s testimony.
- Petition to the Supreme Court
- Vicente filed a petition for review on certiorari contesting the Court of Appeals’ findings.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Garcia and his wife could not have executed the deed of pacto de retro sale as they were in the USA at the time.
- Whether expert testimony is necessary to prove forgery when the questioned signatures differ significantly from the accused person’s customary signatures.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Garcia proved forgery by clear, positive, and convincing evidence based on non-participation in the execution and signature dissimilarities.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)