Title
Dycoco vs. Orina
Case
G.R. No. 184843
Decision Date
Jul 30, 2010
A real estate mortgage was declared null due to improper notarization, alleged forgery, and insufficient evidence, as the mortgagor proved absence during execution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150613-14)

Factual Background

Dycoco allegedly executed a REM in favor of Adelaida, covering a parcel of land in Sta. Cruz, Manila, registered under TCT No. 105730. The mortgage was intended to secure a loan of P250,000.00 payable in six months at an interest rate of 5% per month. Following Dycoco's failure to pay this amount, Adelaida foreclosed the mortgage, leading to the issuance of TCT No. 243525 in her name.

Legal Proceedings Initiated

In response to Adelaida’s complaint for ejectment against Dycoco's attorneys-in-fact, he filed for annulment of the REM and the corresponding transfer of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. Dycoco's representatives claimed the REM was forged, presenting evidence that Dycoco was working in the U.S. on the date the REM was signed, including his U.S. passport and various official documents.

Initial Rulings

The RTC dismissed Dycoco’s annulment complaint on May 23, 2005, stating that his representatives failed to prove the lack of genuine execution of the REM. The Court of Appeals upheld this dismissal, emphasizing that Dycoco’s absence as a witness diminished the probative value of the evidence presented.

Acknowledgment and Notarization Concerns

The acknowledgment section of the REM was incomplete, lacking the identification of Dycoco before the notary public. As such, the nature of the document only categorized it as a private document, requiring stricter proof standards. Consequently, Adelaida had the burden to prove that Dycoco's signature was genuine, which she failed to do satisfactorily by presenting only a photocopy of the REM.

Burden of Proof and Evidence Presented

Dycoco's attorneys-in-fact provided his U.S. passport and a Special Power of Attorney executed in the U.S. to support their claims. The appellate court found that the absence of Dycoco's direct testimony was detrimental to the case, despite evidence of his non-presence in the Philippines during the purported date of the REM's execution.

Testimony Contradictions

Evelyn Sagalongos testified that Dycoco was present during the REM signing; however, this assertion conflicted with the evidence regarding Dycoco’s travel history as documented in his passport. Her testimony lacked credibility, as Dycoco was not mentioned as a witness in the REM documentation.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court ultimately granted Dycoco’s petition, reversing and setting asid

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.