Case Digest (G.R. No. 145431)
Facts:
Romeo Paloma v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Eduardo Poblacion, Apolinaria Paloma Vda. de Villanueva, Renato Panizales, Jonathan Ticar, Vicente Paloma and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), G.R. No. 145431, November 11, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.
On December 27, 1991, petitioner Romeo Paloma filed several complaints for accion publiciana in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 27, against Eduardo Poblacion (Civil Case No. 20168), Narina (Apolinaria) Paloma Vda. de Villanueva (Civil Case No. 20169), Renato Panizales (Civil Case No. 20170) and Jonathan Ticar (Civil Case No. 20171); the cases were consolidated. Private respondents Apolinaria Paloma Vda. de Villanueva and Vicente Paloma intervened in several of the cases. Petitioner claimed absolute and registered ownership of the parcel covered by TCT No. 61166 and alleged respondents were occupants by his tolerance who refused to vacate despite his demands to subdivide and sell the land.
Respondents answered, alleging the Transfer Certificate of Title had been obtained through a forged deed of sale and that signatures of the alleged seller, Mercedes Padernilla (petitioner’s late mother and related to private respondents), were forged. On September 25, 1992, private respondents moved that the questioned deed of sale dated September 15, 1965 be referred to the NBI for expert handwriting examination, using as specimen signatures those of Mercedes appearing in the records of Civil Case No. 6618 ("Mercedes Padernilla v. Romeo Paloma"); the RTC granted this motion on November 4, 1992. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 8, 1993.
Petitioner sought relief by filing a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 30672), contending the trial judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the NBI to use as standard specimen signatures that had not been previously established as genuine. On June 16, 1994 the Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition, affirming the trial court’s order and holding that genuine writings forming part of the records may be used for comparison (citing Bough v. Canterverios and 20 Am. Jur. 705); petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on September 20, 2000.
Meanwhile, the RTC (in Civil Cases Nos. 20168–20171) rendered a decision on March 29, 1999 declaring the deed of sale between petitioner and Mercedes Padernilla valid and effective, and finding that the signatures of Padernilla in a deed of quitclaim were of doubtful authenticity. Respondents appealed that RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69360). Petitioner then filed this petition for review in the Supreme Court seeking to reverse the CA decision of June 16, 1994 and its denial of reconsideration, raising among other assignments that the CA erred in (1) denying certiora...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the present petition for review moot and academic in view of the RTC’s March 29, 1999 decision upholding the questioned deed of sale and the pendency of respondents’ appeal?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to refer the questioned deed of sale to the NBI for handwriting examination using as specimen signatures those taken from the records of Civil Case No. 6618, without first establishing the genuineness and d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)