G.R. No. 215614 - Dizon vs. Matti, Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 215614)

Factual Background

The action arose from respondent’s allegation that sometime in February 2000 he discovered a townhouse owned by petitioner at Veraville Allegria Townhomes, Las Piñas City, and thereafter negotiated and executed a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 24, 2000 transferring the property to him, following his payment in full. Respondent alleged that he inspected original documents, photocopied an alleged Owner’s Duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-58674, and verified the title at the Register of Deeds. Respondent later learned from the Register of Deeds that the title and tax receipts in his possession were falsified. He caused an annotation of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on the title and sued for specific performance, delivery of the Owner’s Duplicate copy of TCT No. T-58674, recovery of possession, and damages. Petitioner denied executing or signing the Deed of Absolute Sale, denied participating in its negotiation or execution, and averred that she did not know respondent or the alleged intermediaries.

Trial Court Proceedings

During trial before the Regional Trial Court, respondent testified as the lone plaintiff-witness. Petitioner presented her brother Wilfredo and Mr. Joeffrey G. Valix, an agent of the Bureau of Immigration, as witnesses. The RTC found that petitioner had sufficiently proven that she was not in the Philippines for the whole month of February 2000, having been employed in London, and that therefore she could not have executed the Deed of Absolute Sale on February 24, 2000. The RTC concluded that petitioner’s signature on the deed was forged, that the requisite consent for a valid sale was lacking, and that the deed was null and void. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied.

The Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. The CA held that the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale enjoyed the presumption of regularity and that only clear, strong, and convincing evidence could overturn such presumption. The CA found the evidence presented by petitioner insufficient to rebut the notarized deed because allegations of forgery should not be presumed and because no expert examination of signatures was conducted. The CA directed petitioner to deliver the original Owner’s Duplicate copy of TCT No. T-58674 and to surrender physical possession of the property.

Issue Presented

The central issue the Supreme Court resolved was whether the CA correctly upheld the validity of the purported Deed of Absolute Sale on the basis of the presumption of regularity attendant to notarized documents, or whether the RTC correctly found that the deed was fictitious and that petitioner did not execute the instrument.

Petition and Procedural Objections

Respondent raised several procedural objections to the Petition, including defects in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping and that petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was unsigned. The Supreme Court examined these procedural infirmities. It found that the certification attached to the petition was executed by petitioner’s brother but that petitioner had shown justifiable inability to sign because of illness abroad, supported by medical evidence. A belated Special Power of Attorney authenticated by the Philippine Embassy in London cured the procedural defect of authorization, and the Court invoked liberal construction of the rules to avoid dismissal on a technical ground. Likewise, the Court accepted that the omission of counsel’s signature on a reconsideration motion was an inadvertence and excused it in view of timely filing and lack of prejudice.

Evidentiary Foundation for Petitioner’s Alibi

The Supreme Court reviewed the evidentiary record that supported petitioner’s claim that she was abroad in February 2000 and therefore could not have executed the deed. The record included petitioner’s affidavit sworn October 16, 2009; testimony of her brother; testimony of Mr. Valix based on Bureau of Immigration records that petitioner was not in the Philippines in February 2000; a Certification and Travel Record from the Bureau of Immigration showing departure October 20, 1999 and return November 9, 2000; petitioner’s passport with immigration stamps; and a Letter/Certification of Employment from Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust attesting to continuous employment in London. The Register of Deeds also certified that the Owner’s Duplicate copy in respondent’s possession was fake, and a notarial-records certification indicated the alleged notarized Deed of Absolute Sale did not exist in the notarial records of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Parañaque City.

Presumption of Regularity of Notarized Documents and the CA’s Reliance

The CA relied on the presumption of regularity that attaches to notarized instruments and required that only clear, strong, and convincing evidence could rebut that presumption. The CA emphasized the absence of an expert handwriting examination and treated the lack of expert testimony as fatal to petitioner’s claim of forgery.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of the Presumption and the Evidence

The Supreme Court rejected the CA’s rigid application of the presumption. It reiterated established doctrine that notarization does not guarantee the substantive validity of a document and that highly questionable circumstances may shatter the presumption of regularity. The Court emphasized the trial court’s primary role and superiority in assessing witness credibility, demeanor, and probative force. The RTC had concluded, after measuring testimony and documentary proof, that petitioner was abroad when the deed was allegedly executed and that her signature on the deed was forged. The Supreme Court found that conclusion supported by strong documentary evidence from public records under Rule 132, Section 23, Rules of Court, and by the Register of Deeds’ certification that the title copy was fake. The Court also noted the notarial-records certification suggesting the deed was not on file, which gave rise to the presumption that the instrument was not notarized.

On Handwriting Experts and Independent Judicial Appraisal

The Supreme Court held that resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory. It affirmed the judge’s prerogative to exercise independent judgment on authenticity of signatures based on all the evidence. The Court examined the questioned signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale and compared it with petitioner’s admitted signatures in other documents, detecting marked dissimilarity in style. The absence of expert testimony did not preclude a finding of forgery where physical impossibility and documentary proof established that petitioner could not have executed the instrument.

Assessment of Respondent’s Case

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 215614)

Parties and Posture

CARMELITA V. DIZON, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE LUIS K. MATTI, JR., RESPONDENT. the petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution that reversed the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of a Complaint for Specific Performance.
The Court of Appeals, Tenth Division issued the assailed Decision dated July 25, 2014 and assailed Resolution dated November 26, 2014 which declared the contested deed valid and ordered delivery of the original title and possession to respondent.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 202, Las Piñas City rendered the dispositive RTC Decision dated October 25, 2011 dismissing the Complaint for Specific Performance and denied reconsideration by Order dated April 13, 2012.

Key Facts

Respondent alleged that in February 2000 he inspected and agreed to purchase a townhouse covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-58674 from the petitioner, that a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 24, 2000 was executed, and that he paid the purchase price in full.
Respondent later discovered that the copy of TCT No. T-58674 and tax receipts in his possession were declared fake by the Register of Deeds and he caused annotation of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim to protect his rights.
Petitioner denied execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale and denied any knowledge of respondent and the real estate agents alleged to have introduced them.
Petitioner presented an affidavit and documentary evidence including a Bureau of Immigration travel record, passport stamps, and an employer's Letter/Certification of Employment to show she was working in London and absent from the Philippines during February 2000.
The notarial records of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Parañaque City certified that the alleged notarized Deed of Absolute Sale did not exist in its notarial records, and the Register of Deeds certified that respondent's Owner's Duplicate of TCT No. T-58674 was fake.
Respondent testified as the lone witness and produced no notary, attesting witnesses, or the real estate agents who allegedly participated in the transaction.

Procedural History

Respondent filed a Complaint for Specific Performance on July 2, 2009.
The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit by Decision dated October 25, 2011 and denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration by Order dated April 13, 2012.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and set aside the RTC Decision by Decision dated July 25, 2014 and directed delivery of the original title and surrender of possession.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated August 20, 2014 and a supplemental motion dated August 29, 2014, which the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution dated November 26, 2014.
Petitioner instituted the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court challenging the CA rulings.

Procedural Issues

The Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the Petition was initially executed by petitioner’s brother rather than by petitioner, in