Title
Gomez vs. Gomez-Samson
Case
G.R. No. 156284
Decision Date
Feb 6, 2007
Dispute over alleged forged deeds of donation involving Consuelo Gomez's estate; Supreme Court upheld lower courts' rulings, finding no fraud or forgery, and deleted damages due to petitioner's good faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 156284)

Trial and Appellate History

The Regional Trial Court dismissed petitioner’s cases (civil actions to annul the deeds and recover properties or damages). The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. Petitioner invoked Rule 45 certiorari before the Supreme Court, asserting factual misapprehensions, grave abuse of discretion, and overlooked irregularities.

Rule on Binding Findings and Exceptions

Under the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, factual findings of the RTC and CA are binding on the Supreme Court, except when based on manifestly mistaken or impossible inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, or overlooked undisputed evidence. Petitioner sought to invoke these exceptions.

Expert Witness Testimonies and Credibility

Petitioner’s NBI expert, Zenaida Torres, opined that the handwritten signature predated typing on Document No. 401 (touch of “o” over typewritten “n”) and that horizontal variances proved separate typing sessions. The RTC discredited her: she lacked specialized credentials, had no access to the actual typewriter, conceded vertical alignment was perfect, and admitted pitch distortion could explain horizontal variances.

Respondents’ expert, Francisco Cruz, demonstrated—using typewriting measurement instruments, ink-tone consistency, margin alignment, and enlarged photographs—that both documents were typed in one continuous sitting. He also testified that no meaningful intersections existed between ink and typescript, making sequence determination impossible per authoritative sources. The RTC and CA found Cruz’s testimony more consistent with established treatises (e.g., Wilson Harrison).

Alleged Irregularities on Document Face

Petitioner highlighted letter-size bond paper, minimal margins, single-spacing, consolidation of diverse properties in single-page deeds, lack of multiple copies, inconsistent placement of PTR numbers, and a non-existent bodega. The Supreme Court held such formal quirks—common among non-lawyer preparers and not indicative of fraud—do not affect validity. Good faith is presumed; petitioner bore the burden to prove bad faith, which circumstantial doubts alone could not satisfy.

Donor’s Tax Payment Dispute

Respondents produced documentary proof that Consuelo filed returns and paid P119,283.63 on October 9, 1979 (check issued by Consuelo, subdivision receipts, BIR acknowledgments) and paid the balance on December 4, 1979. Petitioner pointed to a December 4 certification stating payment was made “on even date” and consecutive receipt numbers. The Court held petitioner failed to prove antedating or falsification of BIR records, and payment timing, even if adverse, did not establish his core allegation of intercalation.

Credibility of Notary Public Sebastian

Petitioner alleged Judge Sebastian’s later administrative dismissal for dishonesty tainted his notarization testimony. The Court of Appeals record showed the deeds were reported to the Notarial Registrar on July 2, 1979. Under Rules of Court, a party may not impeach its own witness unless declared hostile or adverse; Sebastian was neither. Moreover, his testimony aligned with notarial registry entries, and his subsequent administrative sanction post-testimony did not automatically discredit him.

Alleged Implausible Execution Circumstances

Petitioner questioned how the parties could travel from Marikina to Quezon City, execute, notarize, pay cash, and reach the airport for an April 21 flight within hours. The Court noted (1) traffic

...continue reading

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