Case Summary (G.R. No. 139230)
Factual Background
On November 17, 1988, petitioner granted Franco Lim (his brother) the authority to mortgage their co-owned property via an Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney. A loan amounting to P8.5 million was subsequently released by Banco De Oro in favor of Franco, which was fully paid by December 28, 1992. Later, in June 1996, petitioner, Franco, and Victoria Yao Lim (their mother) took a loan of P30 million from the respondent, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage on the same property. The loan default led to foreclosure, and TCT No. 9470 was issued in the respondent's name.
Legal Proceedings and Lower Court Rulings
In January 2001, petitioner filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, seeking to annul the mortgage agreement, alleging that his signature was forged and that he did not consent to the mortgage. The RTC initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent the enforcement of the Writ of Possession. The RTC ultimately ruled in favor of petitioner in April 2005, declaring the mortgage and the related title documents as null and void, and granting a permanent injunction.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, arguing that petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of forgery. It held that the mere allegation of forgery was insufficient to overcome the assumption of regularity of the notarized mortgage. The CA dismissed the case, citing lack of merit in petitioner's claims.
Issues Raised
Petitioner questioned the CA’s ruling concerning the evidence of forgery, specifically whether expert evidence was necessary to support his claim. He also contended the CA erred in dismissing his appeal and argued that the respondent did not exercise due diligence in executing the mortgage.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Petitioner asserted that he was abroad when the mortgage was executed, which would make his signature impossible to have been signed by him. He argued that expert testimony should not be mandatory to prove forgery and claimed that the respondent acted negligently by approving the loan without adequate verification. He further pointed out that his wife’s consent was not obtained, which he believed cast doubt on the validity of the mortgage.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent maintained that petitioner's denial alone was insufficient to prove forgery, arguing that he provided no evidence demonstrating the signatures' authenticity or irregularities in the mortgage transaction. The respondent highlighted that petitioner communicated with the bank regarding the foreclosure and his intention to recover the property, suggesting he could not claim ignorance of the mortgage’s existence.
The Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court found the petition lacks merit. It emphasized that allegations of forgery must be established through clear evidence,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 139230)
Background of the Case
- The case arises from a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 30, 2008.
- Petitioner Francisco Lim executed an Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney on November 17, 1988, authorizing his brother, Franco Lim, to mortgage his share in a property co-owned by them.
- A loan amounting to P8.5 million was granted on February 9, 1989, which Franco fully paid by December 28, 1992.
- On June 14, 1996, Francisco, Franco, and their mother, Victoria Yao Lim, secured a P30 million loan from the respondent, Equitable PCI Bank, using the same property as collateral.
- The loan went unpaid, leading to the property’s foreclosure on September 29, 1999, and the issuance of a Writ of Possession by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Procedural History
- On January 11, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Complaint for Cancellation of the Special Power of Attorney and other related documents against the bank and his brother and mother.
- Petitioner alleged forgery of his signature on the Real Estate Mortgage and Surety Agreement.
- The RTC granted the TRO on January 19, 2001, preventing the bank from enforcing the Writ of Possession.
- Respondent filed an Answer with a Motion to Dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and asserting the regularity of the mortgage documents.
RTC Decision
- The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner on April 4, 2005, finding that he proved by preponderance of evidence that his signature was forged.
- The RTC declared the Real Estate Mortgage Contract, Cert