8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

1/29

1 | P a g e

SPS. EDGARDO AND NATIVIDAD FIDEL, Petitioners,

- versus -

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF THELATE PRIMITIVO ESPINELI, namely, JOSEFINA,PATRICIO and LEONARDO, all !"namedESPINELI, Respondents.

G.R. N#. $%&'%(

Present:

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, N!R"S-S!N#I!G$, C!RPI$ M$R!%"S, #ING!,and &"%!SC$, 'R., JJ.

Pro(u)gated:

'u)* +1, +

)* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *)

DECISION+UISUMBING, J.

#his petition or revie/ see0s to reverse thee2ision -$ dated Nove(3er ++, + 4 and the Reso)ution -' dated Ma* +5,

+ 6o the Court o !ppea)s in C!-G.R. C& No. 51778. #he appe))ate 2ourthad a9r(ed /ith (odi 2ation the e2ision -( dated;e3ruar* + , + 1 o the Regiona) #ria) Court

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

2/29

+ | P a g e

PRI&!#" R"SP$N "N#S D!&" N$ %"G!% P"RS$N!%I# #$INS#I#U#" #D" !C#I$N ;$R !NNU%M"N# $; S!%",C$N&" !NC" !N !M!G"S.

II.

K %IL" IS" C$MMI##" "RR$R IN R"C$GNI ING!N J$R ! MI##ING #D" B!P#ISM!% C"R#I;IC!#" $;PRIMI#I&$ "SPIN"%I !S PR$$; $; ;I%I!#I$N #D!#H&IC"N#" "SPIN"%I IS DIS ;!#D"R .

III.K "RR" IN ! !R ING !M!G"S !N !##$RN" AS;""S, C$NSI "RING #D!# PRI&!#" R"SP$N "N#S MUS#;IRS# INS#I#U#" ! S"P!R!#" !C#I$N #$ PR$&" #D"IR;I%I!#I$N.-2Respondents or their part raise the o))o/ing issues:

I.D"#D"R $R N$# PRI&!#" R"SP$N "N#S !R"

SU;;ICI"N#% C%$#D" I#D %"G!% P"RS$N!%I# #$;I%" #D" PR"S"N# !C#I$N ;$R !NNU%M"N# $; S!%",R"C$N&" !NC" I#D !M!G"S I#D$U# PR"'U IC" #$INS#I#U#ING ! S"P!R!#" !C#I$N #$ "S#!B%ISD;I%I!#I$N !N D"IRSDIP IN ! S"P!R!#" HPR$C"" ING .

II.!SSUMING P"#I#I$N"RS D!&" P"RS$N!%I# #$ R!IS"

#D" ISSU" $; ;I%I!#I$N, D"#D"R $R N$# #D"B!P#ISM!% C"R#I;IC!#" $; PRIMI#I&$ "SPIN"%I IS &!%I!N C$MP"#"N# "&I "NC" $; DIS ;I%I!#I$N !S CDI%$; &IC"N#" "SPIN"%I.

III.D"#D"R $R N$# #D" S!%" $; SUB'"C# PR$P"R# B

GU! !%UP" #$ P"#I#I$N"RS ;I "% IS &!%I UN "R #D"PRINCIP%" $; BU "R IN G$$ ;!I#D.

I&.D"#D"R $R N$# #D" ! !R $; !M!G"S !N

!##$RN" AS ;""S #$ PRI&!#" R"SP$N "N#S D!S N$B!SIS SINC" ! HS"P!R!#" !C#I$N #$ PR$&" #D"IR

;I%I!#I$N SD$U% ;IRS# B" ;I%" .-$3

Brie * stated, the issues or our reso)ution are:

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

3/29

| P a g e

ea #na8ly :led 8y 94e ?"#?e" ?a"9y, 946 d#79"6ne4a n# a??l67a96#n 6n 94e 6n 9an9 7a e 7#n 6de"6n=94a9 "e ?#nden9 < 7la6m 5a 94a9 ?e9696#ne"R#d#l@# 5a n#9 8#"n 9# 94e de7ea ed ?#! e J# eand Gene"# a Fe"nande /e do not have a situation/herein the* uate 2o(pensation or su2h

pe2uniar* )oss or )osses a2tua))* suFered 3* hi( /hi2h he has du)*proven. Su2h da(ages, to 3e re2overa3)e, (ust not on)* 3e 2apa3)e o proo , 3ut (ust a2tua))* 3e proved /ith a reasona3)e degree o 2ertaint*. Courts 2annot si(p)* re)* on spe2u)ation, 2onEe2ture orguess/or0 in deter(ining the a2t and a(ount o da(ages. !ttorne*As eesshou)d there ore 3e de)eted or )a20 o a2tua) 3asis and )ega) Eusti 2ation.-$% Mora) da(ages shou)d )i0e/ise not 3e a/arded sin2e respondents didnot sho/ proo o (ora) suFering, (enta) anguish, serious an?iet*,3es(ir2hed reputation, nor /ounded ee)ings and so2ia) hu(i)iation. -$1

;HEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . #he assai)ed e2isiondated Nove(3er ++, + 4 and the Reso)ution dated Ma* +5, + 6 o theCourt o !ppea)s in C!-G.R. C& No. 51778 are AFFIRMED /iththe MODIFICATION that the a/ard o (ora) and e?e(p)ar* da(ages as/e)) as attorne*As ees 3e DELETED . No pronoun2e(ent as to 2osts.

SO ORDERED. ERNESTO L. SALAS, G.R. No. 165588 Pe9696#ne",

Present:

PUN$, C.J., Chairperson, S!N $&!%-GU#I"RR" ,* e " ! * C$R$N!, ! CUN! and G!RCI!, JJ. STA. MESA MAR ETCORPORATION and 94e HEIRSOF PRIMITIVO E. DOMINGO, Re ?#nden9 . Pro(u)gated:

'u)* 1+, + 5

) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ) D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.

#his petition or revie/ on 2ertiorari H1 see0s to set aside the !pri) ,+ 1 de2ision o the Court !ppea)s

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

4/29

4 | P a g e

2orporation Sta. Mesa Mar0et Corporation uestion /ere supposed)* 2opies o the audited nan2ia)state(ents o SMMC. ;inan2ia) state(ents

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

5/29

6 | P a g e

a. B* an*one /ho sa/ the do2u(ent e?e2uted or /ritten or 3. B* eviden2e o the genuineness o the signature or hand/riting o the(a0er.

!n* other private do2u(ent need on)* 3e identi ed as that /hi2h itis 2)ai(ed to 3e.

Petitioner and respondents agree that the do2u(ents presented aseviden2e /ere (ere copies o the audited nan2ia) state(ents su3(ittedto the BIR and S"C. Neither part* 2)ai(ed that 2opies presented/ere certi ed true copies H + o audited nan2ia) state(ents o3tained orse2ured ro( the BIR or the S"C /hi2h under Se2tion 17uent)*, authenti2ation /as a pre2ondition to theirad(issi3i)it* in eviden2e.

uring authenti2ation in 2ourt, a /itness positive)* testi es that ado2u(ent presented as eviden2e is genuine and has 3een du)*e?e2uted H or that the do2u(ent is neither spurious nor 2ounter eit nore?e2uted 3* (ista0e or under duress .H 4 In this 2ase, petitioner (ere)*presented a (e(orandu( attesting to the in2rease in the 2orporation s(onth)* (ar0et revenue, prepared 3* a (e(3er o his (anage(enttea(. hi)e there is no ?ed 2riterion as to /hat 2onstitutes 2o(petenteviden2e to esta3)ish the authenti2it* o a private do2u(ent, the 3est proo avai)a3)e (ust 3e presented. H 6 #he 3est proo avai)a3)e, in this instan2e,/ou)d have 3een the testi(on* o a representative o SMMC s e?terna)auditor /ho prepared the audited nan2ia) state(ents. Inas(u2h as there/as none, the audited nan2ia) state(ents /ere never authenti2ated.

Neverthe)ess, petitioner insists on the app)i2ation o an e?2eption tothis ru)e: authenti2ation is not ne2essar* /here the adverse part* hasad(itted the genuineness and due e?e2ution o a do2u(ent. H 8 #he a2t,ho/ever, /as that no/here in his testi(on* did !(ado o(ingo

2ategori2a))* ad(it the authenti2it* o the 2opies o the audited nan2ia)state(ents. De on)* testi ed that SMMC regu)ar)* su3(itted its auditednan2ia) state(ents to the BIR and S"C. H 5 #here /as never an* ad(ission

that the do2u(ents presented 3* petitioner /ere true or aith u) 2opies othose su3(itted to the BIR and the S"C .H

;HEREFORE, the petition is here3* DENIED . #he !pri) , + 1de2ision and !pri) , + reso)ution o the Court o !ppea)s in C!-G.R. C&No. 6 are here3* AFFIRMED .

Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

$#D"R C!S"S 17-4

PDI%IP S. U, G.R. No. 164116 Petitioner, Present:

PUN$, J., Chairman, - versus - !US#RI!-M!R#IN" , C!%%"'$, SR., #ING!, and CDIC$-N! !RI$, JJ.D$N. C$UR# $; !PP"!%S,Se2ond ivision, and &I&"C!%IM U, Pro(u)gated: Respondents. Nove(3er +7, + 6 ?-------------------------------------------------------------------?

D E C I S I O N

#ING!, J.:

#his treats o the petition or revie/ on 2ertiorari o the Court o!ppea)sA e2ision and Reso)ution in C! G.R. SP No. 88+6+ dated !pri)+ +H1 and +5 'une + + ,H+ respe2tive)*, /hi2h set aside the Order o theRegiona) #ria) Court

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

6/29

8 | P a g e

Code and Se2tion 6 o the Civi) Registr* %a/, H7 3oth o /hi2h prohi3it theunauthori@ed identi 2ation o the parents o an i))egiti(ate 2hi)d. H1 Privaterespondent sought re2onsideration o the Order , 3ut the (otion /as denied3* the tria) 2ourt. H11

!ggrieved, private respondent )ed a petition or 2ertiorari 3e ore theCourt o !ppea)s, i(puting grave a3use o dis2retion a(ounting to )a20 ore?2ess o Eurisdi2tion on the part o 'udge Dernande@ in issuing the 1 Ma*+ 1 Order .H1+ #he Court o !ppea)s su((ari@ed the issues as o))o/s: uent)* void /ithrespe2t to the parti2u)ar 2ase 3e2ause the 2onditions under /hi2h he /as

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn24

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

7/29

5 | P a g e

on)* authori@ed to e?er2ise his genera) po/er in that 2ase did not e?ist andthere ore, the Eudi2ia) po/er /as not )ega))* e?er2ised. H+6 #hus, in de2)aringthat the do2u(ents are irre)evant and inad(issi3)e even 3e ore the* /ere

or(a))* oFered, (u2h )ess presented 3e ore it, the tria) 2ourt a2ted ine?2ess o its dis2retion. !nent the issue o /hether the in or(ation 2ontained in the do2u(ents isprivi)eged in nature, the sa(e /as 2)ari ed and sett)ed 3* the Insuran2eCo((issionerAs opinion that the 2ir2u)ar on /hi2h the tria) 2ourt 3ased itsru)ing /as not designed to o3stru2t )a/ u) 2ourt orders. H+8 Den2e, there isno (ore i(pedi(ent to presenting the insuran2e app)i2ation and po)i2*.

Petitioner additiona))* 2)ai(s that 3* virtue o private respondentAstender o e?2)uded eviden2e, she has rendered (oot her petition 3e ore theCourt o !ppea)s sin2e the (ove evin2ed that she had another speed* andade>uate re(ed* under the )a/. #he Court ho)ds other/ise.

Se2tion 4 , Ru)e 1 + provides:

Se2.4 . #ender o e?2)uded eviden2e.XI do2u(ents or things oFeredin eviden2e are e?2)uded 3* the 2ourt, the oFeror (a* have the sa(eatta2hed to or (ade part o the re2ord. I the eviden2e e?2)uded is ora), theoFeror (a* state or the re2ord the na(e and other persona)2ir2u(stan2es o the /itness and the su3stan2e o the proposed testi(on*.

It is thus apparent that 3e ore tender o e?2)uded eviden2e is (ade, theeviden2e (ust have 3een or(a))* oFered 3e ore the 2ourt. !nd 3e ore

or(a) oFer o eviden2e is (ade, the eviden2e (ust have 3een identi edand presented 3e ore the 2ourt. hi)e private respondent (ade a V enderof !xc"uded !vidence,# su2h is not the tender 2onte(p)ated 3* the a3ove->uoted ru)e, or o3vious)*, the insuran2e po)i2* and app)i2ation /ere not

or(a))* oFered (u2h )ess presented 3e ore the tria) 2ourt. !t (ost, saidV ender of !xc"uded !vidence W /as a

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/154115.htm#_ftn26

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

8/29

| P a g e

(ani estation o an undisputed a2t that the su3Ee2t do2u(ents /erede2)ared inad(issi3)e 3* the tria) 2ourt even 3e ore these /ere presentedduring tria). It /as not the 0ind o p)ain, speed* and ade>uate re(ed*/hi2h private respondent 2ou)d have resorted to instead o the petition or2ertiorari she )ed 3e ore the Court o !ppea)s. It did not in an* /a* renderthe said petition (oot.

D"R";$R", pre(ises 2onsidered, the petition is "NI" . #he $ecision dated !pri) + + and Reso"ution dated +5 'une + + are!;;IRM" . Costs against petitioner. S$ $R "R" .

G.R. N#. $0$2//. Jan!a"y '3, '33/ENGR. ERNESTO T. MATUGAS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ONELECTIONS and ROBERT L NDON S. BARBERS, respondents.D E C I S I O NTINGA, J.

#he %o2a) Govern(ent Code o 1771 H1 re>uires that an e)e2tive )o2a) o92ia)3e a 2iti@en o the Phi)ippines. H+ hether the in2u(3ent Governor oSurigao de) Norte is a 2iti@en o the Phi)ippines and, there ore, >ua)i ed toho)d su2h o92e is the issue in this 2ase.$n ;e3ruar* + , + 1, private respondent Ro3ert %*ndon S. Bar3ers )edhis 2erti 2ate o 2andida2* or the position o Governor o Surigao de) Norte

or the Ma* 14, + 1 e)e2tions. $n !pri) 1 , + 1, petitioner "rnesto #.Matugas, hi(se) a 2andidate or the sa(e post, )ed /ith the Co((issionon ")e2tions uest /as the rep)*o said George C)ar0e stating that the Vsu3Ee2tW /as natura)i@ed as an!(eri2an 2iti@en on $2to3er 11, 1771 in %os !nge)es, Ca)i ornia. #hedo2u(ent H reads:

ear Mr. C)ar0 Hsi2 :Per our phone 2onversation, (a* I re>uest or Hsi2 a 2erti 2ation ro( *our"(3ass* regarding the US 2iti@enship o MR. R$B"R# % N $N S. B!RB"RS/ho /as 3orn on 'u)* 16, 178 .Lind)* a? *our rep)*, addressed to the undersigned at #e). No. < +=

4468. #han0 *ou and regards.&er* tru)* *ours,

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

9/29

7 | P a g e

#his 2erti 2ation is issued upon re>uest o Mr. Be3ot Po(o* or /hatever)ega) purpose it (a* serve.&eri ed 3* : "di)3erto $r3ase Co(puter Se2tion

ate T #i(e : Septe(3er 1, + 1 :+5 a(uent events /hen, on the o))o/ing da*,Ma* 1 , + 1, private respondent /as pro2)ai(ed the du)* e)e2tedgovernor o Surigao de) Norte.$n 'u)* 6, + 1, the Se2ond ivision o the C$M"%"C issueda Reso"ution dis(issing or )a20 o (erit the Petition to $is%ua"if . #heC$M"%"C ound V)itt)e or no pro3ative va)ueW in the notation o GeorgeC)ar0e to !ganaAs )etter-re>uest. H8 hi)e noting that the BI 2erti 2ationinvo)ving the trave) re2ords o Ro3ert %*ndon S. Bar3ers stated that he /asan !(eri2an, the C$M"%"C he)d that Vthere is no other independenteviden2e... to Eusti * petitionerAs 2)ai( that respondent has renoun2ed hisa))egian2e to the Phi)ippines at an* ti(e.W H5Petitioner )ed a 'otion for Reconsideration /ith the C$M"%"C !n +anc ,/hi2h on 'anuar* , + + dis(issed the 'otion and a9r(edthe Reso"ution o the Se2ond ivision.Petitioner thus instituted these pro2eedings or 2ertiorari, 2)ai(ing that theC$M"%"C 2o((itted grave a3use o dis2retion in den*ing his Petition to$is%ua"if .H De (aintains that private respondent /as not a ;i)ipino2iti@enship at the ti(e o his e)e2tion.Basi2 in the )a/ o eviden2e is that one /ho a))eges a a2t has the 3urden o proving it .H7 In ad(inistrative 2ases, the >uantu( o proo re>uired issu3stantia) eviden2e .H1 Petitioner did not over2o(e his 3urden. #hedo2u(entar* eviden2e he su3(itted ai)s to esta3)ish that privaterespondent is not a ;i)ipino 2iti@en.

#he do2u(ent 2ontaining the notation o George C)ar0e does not prove thatprivate respondent is indeed a natura)i@ed !(eri2an 2iti@en. ;or thepurpose o their presentation in eviden2e, do2u(ents are either pu3)i2 orprivate. Pu3)i2 do2u(ents in2)ude the /ritten o92ia) a2ts or re2ords o theo92ia) a2ts o the sovereign authorit*, o92ia) 3odies and tri3una)s, andpu3)i2 o92ers, /hether o the Phi)ippines, or o a oreign 2ountr*. H11 #here2ord o su2h pu3)i2 do2u(ents (a* 3e eviden2ed 3* an o92ia)pu3)i2ation thereo or 3* a 2op* attested 3* the o92er having the )ega)2ustod* o the re2ord. I the re2ord is not 0ept in the Phi)ippines, theattested 2op* shou)d 3e a22o(panied 3* a 2erti 2ate that su2h o92er has2ustod* thereo . H1+

#he grant o United States 2iti@enship 3* natura)i@ation is an o92ia) a2t othe United States. #he do2u(ent 2ontaining the re2ord o this a2t is,

there ore, a pu3)i2 do2u(ent and, o))o/ing the ru)e 2ited a3ove, thisdo2u(ent 2an on)* 3e eviden2ed 3* its o92ia) pu3)i2ation or a 2op* du)*attested 3* the o92er having )ega) 2ustod* thereo .

#he notation in the )etter-in>uir* o 'esus !gana is neither an o92ia)pu3)i2ation o the do2u(ent that 2ontains the re2ord o privaterespondentAs natura)i@ation, nor a 2op* attested 3* the o92er /ho has)ega) 2ustod* o the re2ord. Petitioner did not sho/ i C)ar0e, the notationAsa))eged author, is the o92er 2harged /ith the 2ustod* o su2h re2ord.;urther(ore, Se2tion 5, Ru)e 1 o the Ru)es o Court states that /hen theorigina) o a do2u(ent is in the 2ustod* o a pu3)i2 o92er or is re2orded ina pu3)i2 o92e, as in this 2ase, the 2ontents o said do2u(ent (a* 3eproved 3* a 2erti ed 2op* issued 3* the pu3)i2 o92er in 2ustod*thereo . #he su3Ee2t )etter-in>uir*, /hi2h 2ontains the notation, appears to3e a (ere photo2op*, not a 2erti ed 2op*.

#he other do2u(ent re)ied upon 3* petitioner is the Certi cation dated 1Septe(3er + issued 3* the BI . Petitioner su3(its that privaterespondent has de2)ared that he is an !(eri2an 2iti@en as sho/n 3*said Certi cation and, under Se2tion +8, Ru)e 1 o the Ru)es o Court,su2h de2)aration (a* 3e given in eviden2e against hi(.

#he ru)e 2ited 3* petitioner does not app)* in this 2ase 3e2ause the ru)epertains to the ad(issi3i)it* o eviden2e. #here is no issue here as to thead(issi3i)it* o the BI Certi cation the C$M"%"C did not ho)d that thesa(e /as inad(issi3)e. In an* 2ase, the BI Certi cation suFers ro( thesa(e de e2t as the notation ro( the supposed US "(3ass* o92ia).Said Certi cation is a)so a photo2op*, not a 2erti ed 2op*.Moreover, the 2erti 2ation 2ontains in2onsistent entries regarding theVnationa)it*W o private respondent. hi)e so(e entries indi2ate that he isV!(eri2an,W other entries state that he is V;i)ipino.WPetitioner a)so atta2hed in his 'emorandum 3e ore this Court anotherdo2u(ent, H1 o3vious)* a photo2op*, /hi2h reads in u)):UNI#" S#!#"S IS#RIC# C$UR#C"N#R!% IS#RIC# $; C!%I;$RNI!U.S. C$UR#D$US"

1+ N$R#D SPRING S#R""#, SUI#" +7%$S !NG"%"S, C!%I;$RNI!, 7 1+!ugust 1, + 1

#he o92ia) Natura)i@ation the United States istri2t Court o Ca)i orniasho/s the o))o/ing:Na(e: Ro3ert %*ndon Bar3ers

ate o Birth: 'u)* 16, 178Petition No.: 7 65!)ien No.: !4 48 88Certi 2ate No.: 145 541

ate o Natura)i@ation: $2to3er 11, 1771

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

10/29

1 | P a g e

CI# $; %$S !NG"%"S =S.S.S#!#" $; C!%I;$RNI!, U.S.!.AUTHENTICATION

#$ !%% D$M #D"S" PR"S"N#S SD!%% C$M", GR""#INGS:I, CRIS#IN! G. $R#"G!, C$NSU% at %os !nge)es, Ca)i ornia, du)*2o((issioned and >ua)i ed, do here3* 2erti * that !B"% M!R#IN" /hosesea)Jsignature appears on the anne?ed 2erti 2ate /as, at the ti(e hesigned the anne?ed 2erti 2ate, ! eput* C)er0 o the United States istri2tCourt, Centra) istri2t o Ca)i ornia and veri)* 3e)ieve that his sea)Jsignaturea9?ed thereto is genuine.;or the 2ontents o the anne?ed do2u(ent, this Consu)ate Genera) assu(esno responsi3i)it*.IN I#N"SS D"R"$;, I have hereunto set (* hand and 2aused the sea) o the Consu)ate Genera) o the Repu3)i2 o the Phi)ippines at %os !nge)es,Ca)i ornia, U.S.!., to a9?ed this da* o !ugust + 1.

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

11/29

11 | P a g e

O 7a" A. A"76lla, Sa"a4 A. A"76lla, and N#"a A. A"76lla, n#5 de7ea edand !8 969!9ed 8y 4e" #n S4a"my A"76lla, "e?"e en9ed 8y 94e6"a99#"ney*6n*@a79, SARAH A. ARCILLA, petitioners,vs.MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO, respondent.D E C I S I O NAUSTRIA*MARTINE , J.Be ore the Court is a Petition or Revie/ on Certiorari under Ru)e 46 o theRu)es o Court assai)ing the Septe(3er 1+, + e2ision 1 o the Court o!ppea)s uent)*, tria) o the 2ase ensued.$n Mar2h + , 177 , herein respondent )ed a Motion or!d(ission 5 2ontending that through oversight and inadverten2e she ai)edto in2)ude in her app)i2ation, the veri 2ation and 2erti 2ate against oru(shopping re>uired 3* Supre(e Court uire(ent o SC !d(inistrative Cir2u)ar No. 4-74 and that an* vio)ationo the said Cir2u)ar sha)) 3e a 2ause or the dis(issa) o the app)i2ationupon (otion and a ter hearing.$pposing the (otion to dis(iss, respondents asserted that the petitionersMotion to is(iss !pp)i2ation /as )ed out o ti(e respondent s ai)ure to2o(p)* /ith SC !d(inistrative Cir2u)ar No. 4-74 /as not /i)) u), de)i3erateor intentiona) and the Motion to is(iss /as dee(ed /aived or ai)ure opetitioners to )e the sa(e during the ear)ier stages o the pro2eedings.$n 'u)* 17, 1777, the M#C issued an $rder 7 den*ing petitioners Motion to

is(iss !pp)i2ation.$n 'une +6, + 1, the M#C rendered a e2ision 1 the dispositive portion o/hi2h reads as o))o/s:N$ #D"R";$R", and 2onsidering a)) the a3ove pre(ises, the Court ndsand so ho)ds that !pp)i2ant M!. %$UR "S !. #"$ $R$, having su92ienttit)e over this )and app)ied or here3* renders Eudg(ent, /hi2h shou)d 3e,as it is here3* C$N;IRM" and R"GIS#"R" in her na(e.I# IS S$ $R "R" . 11Derein petitioners then )ed an appea) /ith the Regiona) #ria) Court o &ira2,Catanduanes. In its e2ision 1+ dated ;e3ruar* ++, + +, the R#C, Bran2h 4 ,o &ira2, Catanduanes dis(issed the appea) or )a20 o (erit anda9r(ed in toto the e2ision o the M#C. Petitioners )ed a Motion orRe2onsideration 3ut it /as denied 3* the R#C in its $rder 1 o 'u)* ++, + +.!ggrieved 3* the R#C e2ision, petitioners )ed a Petition or Revie/ 14 /iththe C!. $n Septe(3er 1+, + , the C! pro(u)gated its present)* assai)ed

e2ision dis(issing the Petition. Petitioners )ed a Motion orRe2onsideration 3ut the sa(e /as denied 3* the C! in itsReso)ution 16 dated Mar2h +4, + 4.Den2e, the herein petition 3ased on the o))o/ing grounds:!. #he Donora3)e Court o !ppea)s did not ru)e in a22ordan2e /ith theprevai)ing ru)es and Eurispruden2e /hen it he)d that the 3e)ated )ing, a ter(ore than t/o uent)* su3(itted 3* respondent does not re>uire a2erti 2ation ro( an o92er o the oreign servi2e o the Phi)ippines asprovided under Se2tion +4, Ru)e 1 + o the Ru)es o Court.C. #he Donora3)e Court o !ppea)s did not ru)e in a22ordan2e /ithprevai)ing )a/s and Eurispruden2e /hen it uphe)d the de2isions o theRegiona) #ria) Court

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

12/29

1+ | P a g e

hether or not the Supre(e Court (a* in>uire into 2on2)usions o a2ts(ade 3* the Donora3)e Court o !ppea)s in the instant Petition. 15T4e C#!"9< R!l6n=

#he petition is 3ere t o (erit.T4e CA "!led 7#""e79ly 54en 69 4eld 94a9 94e 8ela9ed :l6n= #@ a

5#"n 7e"96:7a96#n #@ n#n*@#"!m 4#??6n= 5a !8 9an96al7#m?l6an7e 5694 SC Adm6n6 9"a96 e C6"7!la" N#. 3/*2/.Under the attendant 2ir2u(stan2es in the present 2ase, the Court 2annotupho)d petitionersA 2ontention that respondent s de)a* o (ore than t/o*ears and three (onths in )ing the re>uired 2erti 2ate o non- oru(shopping (a* not 3e 2onsidered su3stantia) 2o(p)ian2e /ith there>uire(ents o SC !d(inistrative Cir2u)ar No. 4-74 and Se2tion 6, Ru)e 5o the Ru)es o Court that respondent s reasons o oversight andinadverten2e do not 2onstitute a Eusti a3)e 2ir2u(stan2e that 2ou)d e?2useher non-2o(p)ian2e /ith the (andator* re>uire(ents o the a3ove-(entioned Cir2u)ar and Ru)e that su3se>uent 2o(p)ian2e /ith there>uire(ent does not serve as an e?2use or a part* s ai)ure to 2o(p)* inthe rst instan2e.Se2tion 6, Ru)e 5, o the Ru)es o Court provides:Se2. 6. Certi cation a0ainst forum shoppin0 . Y #he p)aintiF or prin2ipa)part* sha)) 2erti * under oath in the 2o(p)aint or other initiator* p)eadingasserting a 2)ai( or re)ie , or in a s/orn 2erti 2ation anne?ed thereto andsi(u)taneous)* )ed there/ith: uasi-Eudi2ia) agen2* and, to the 3est o his 0no/)edge, no su2hother a2tion or 2)ai( is pending therein uire(ent or 2ivi) 2o(p)aints and other initiator* p)eadings

)ed in a)) 2ourts and other agen2ies.In 1abionza v. Court of *ppea"s ,1 this Court has he)d that Cir2u)ar No. + -71 /as designed to serve as an instru(ent to pro(ote and a2i)itate theorder)* ad(inistration o Eusti2e and shou)d not 3e interpreted /ith su2ha3so)ute )itera)ness as to su3vert its o/n u)ti(ate and )egiti(ate o3Ee2tive

or the goa) o a)) ru)es o pro2edure Y /hi2h is to a2hieve su3stantia) Eusti2eas e?peditious)* as possi3)e. 17 #he sa(e guide)ine sti)) app)ies ininterpreting /hat is no/ Se2tion 6, Ru)e 5 o the 1775 Ru)es o Civi)Pro2edure. +

#he Court is u))* a/are that pro2edura) ru)es are not to 3e 3e)itt)ed orsi(p)* disregarded, or these pres2ri3ed pro2edures insure an order)* andspeed* ad(inistration o Eusti2e. +1 Do/ever, it is e>ua))* sett)ed that)itigation is not (ere)* a ga(e o te2hni2a)ities. ++ Ru)es o pro2edure shou)d3e vie/ed as (ere too)s designed to a2i)itate the attain(ent o

Eusti2e.+ #heir stri2t and rigid app)i2ation, /hi2h /ou)d resu)t inte2hni2a)ities that tend to rustrate rather than pro(ote su3stantia) Eusti2e,(ust a)/a*s 3e es2he/ed. +4 "ven the Ru)es o Court re e2t this prin2ip)e. +6Moreover, the e(erging trend in our Eurispruden2e is to aFord ever* part*-)itigant the a(p)est opportunit* or the proper and Eust deter(ination o his2ause ree ro( the 2onstraints o te2hni2a)ities. +8It (ust 3e 0ept in (ind that /hi)e the re>uire(ent o the 2erti 2ate o non-

oru( shopping is (andator*, nonethe)ess the re>uire(ent (ust not 3einterpreted too )itera))* and thus de eat the o3Ee2tive o preventing theundesira3)e pra2ti2e o oru( shopping. +5 In 2 v. -and +an3 of thePhi"ippines ,+ the Court ru)ed, thus:

#he ad(ission o the petition a ter the 3e)ated )ing o the 2erti 2ation,there ore, is not unpre2edented. In those 2ases /here the Court e?2usednon-2o(p)ian2e /ith the re>uire(ents, there /ere spe2ia) 2ir2u(stan2es or2o(pe))ing reasons (a0ing the stri2t app)i2ation o the ru)e 2)ear)*unEusti ed. In the 2ase at 3ar, the apparent (erits o the su3stantiveaspe2ts o the 2ase shou)d 3e dee(ed as a Zspe2ia) 2ir2u(stan2eZ orZ2o(pe))ing reasonZ or the reinstate(ent o the petition. ? ? ? +7Citing $e 1uia v. $e 1uia the Court, in !stribi""o v. $epartment of *0rarianReform , 1 he)d that even i there /as 2o(p)ete non-2o(p)ian2e /ith theru)e on 2erti 2ation against oru(-shopping, the Court (a* sti)) pro2eed tode2ide the 2ase on the (erits pursuant to its inherent po/er to suspend itso/n ru)es on grounds o su3stantia) Eusti2e and apparent (erit o the 2ase.In the instant 2ase, the Court nds that the )o/er 2ourts did not 2o((it an*error in pro2eeding to de2ide the 2ase on the (erits, as herein respondent/as a3)e to su3(it a 2erti 2ation o non- oru( shopping. More i(portant)*,the apparent (erit o the su3stantive aspe2t o the petition or )andregistration )ed 3* respondent /ith the M#C 2oup)ed /ith the sho/ing thatshe had no intention to vio)ate the Ru)es /ith i(punit*, as she /as the one/ho invited the attention o the 2ourt to the inadverten2e 2o((itted 3* her2ounse), shou)d 3e dee(ed as spe2ia) 2ir2u(stan2es or 2o(pe))ing reasonsto de2ide the 2ase on the (erits.In addition, 2onsidering that a dis(issa) 2onte(p)ated under Ru)e 5,Se2tion 6 o the Ru)es o Court is, as a ru)e, a dis(issa) /ithout preEudi2e,and sin2e there is no sho/ing that respondent is gui)t* o oru( shopping,to dis(iss respondent s petition or registration /ou)d entai) a tediouspro2ess o re- )ing the petition, re>uiring the parties to re-su3(it thep)eadings /hi2h the* have a)read* )ed /ith the tria) 2ourt, and 2ondu2tingane/ hearings /hi2h have a)read* 3een done, not to (ention the e?pensesthat /i)) 3e in2urred 3* the parties in re- )ing o p)eadings and in the re-2ondu2t o hearings. #hese /ou)d not 3e in 0eeping /ith the Eudi2ia) po)i2*

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_162886_2008.html#fnt31

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

13/29

1 | P a g e

o Eust, speed* and ine?pensive disposition o ever* a2tion andpro2eeding . +T4e 7e"96:7a96#n #@ n#n*@#"!m 4#??6n= e)e7!9ed 6n a @#"e6=n7#!n9"y 6 n#9 7# e"ed 8y Se796#n '/, R!le $(' #@ 94e R!le #@C#!"9.

#here is no (erit to petitionersA 2ontentions that the veri 2ation and2erti 2ation su3se>uent)* su3(itted 3* respondent did not state the2ountr* or 2it* /here the notar* pu3)i2 e?er2ised her notaria) un2tions andthat the M#C si(p)* 2on2)uded, /ithout an* 3asis, that said notar* pu3)i2/as ro( Mar*)and, US! that even granting that the veri 2ation and2erti 2ation o non- oru( shopping /ere notari@ed in the US!, the sa(e(a* not 3e dee(ed ad(issi3)e or an* purpose in the Phi)ippines or ai)ureto 2o(p)* /ith the re>uire(ent o Se2tion +4, Ru)e 1 + o the Ru)es oCourt that the notari@ed do2u(ent (ust 3e a22o(panied 3* a 2erti 2ateissued 3* an o92er in the oreign servi2e o the Phi)ippines /ho is stationedin the 2ountr* in /hi2h a re2ord o the su3Ee2t do2u(ent is 0ept, proving orauthenti2ating that the person /ho notari@ed the do2u(ent is indeedauthori@ed to do so and has 2ustod* o the sa(e.

#he Court agrees /ith the dis>uisition o the C!, to /it:;ro( the oregoing provision Hre erring to Se2tion +4, Ru)e 1 +, Ru)es oCourt , it 2an 3e gathered that it does not in2)ude do2u(entsa20no/)edged 3e ore Ha notar* pu3)i2 a3road. ;or oreign pu3)i2do2u(ents to 3e ad(issi3)e or an* purpose here in our 2ourts, the sa(e(ust 3e 2erti ed 3* an* o92er o the Phi)ippine )egation stationed in the2ountr* /here the do2u(ents 2ou)d 3e ound or had 3een e?e2uted.Do/ever, a ter Eudi2ious studies o the ru)e, Se2. +4, Ru)e 1 + o the 1775Ru)es o Court 3asi2a))* pertains to /ritten o92ia) a2ts, or re2ords o theo92ia) o the sovereign authorit*, o92ia) 3odies and tri3una)s, and pu3)i2o92ers, /hether o the Phi)ippines, or o a oreign 2ountr*. #his is so, asSe2. +4, Ru)e 1 + e?p)i2it)* re ers on)* to paragraph

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

14/29

14 | P a g e

Sett)ed is the ru)e that the tria) 2ourtAs ndings o a2t, espe2ia))* /hena9r(ed 3* the C!, are genera))* 3inding and 2on2)usive upon thisCourt. 8 #here are re2ogni@ed e?2eptions to this ru)e, a(ong /hi2h are:

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

15/29

16 | P a g e

or the signatures o the a9ants appearing therein /ere never 2ontestednor raised as an issue and that petitioner Sarah !r2i))a herse)a20no/)edged her o/n signature in the said !9davit.In an* event, the )a/ does not re>uire that parties to a do2u(ent notari@ed3* a notar* pu3)i2 shou)d 3e residents o the p)a2e /here the saiddo2u(ent is a20no/)edged or that the* a9? their signature in the presen2eo the notar* pu3)i2. hat is ne2essar* is that the persons /ho signed anotari@ed do2u(ent are the ver* sa(e persons /ho e?e2uted andpersona))* appeared 3e ore the notar* pu3)i2 in order to attest to the2ontents and truth o /hat are stated therein. 44In the instant 2ase, it is esta3)ished that, /ith the e?2eption o petitionerRene !r2i))a, a)) o herein petitioners, in2)uding their no/ de2eased (other

'ose a and sister Nora, e?e2uted and persona))* a20no/)edged 3e ore thenotar* pu3)i2 the su3Ee2t !9davit o Quit2)ai(. Den2e, aside ro( Rene, thesaid !9davit o Quit2)ai( is va)id and 3inding on a)) the petitioners.

ith respe2t to Rene, petitioner $s2ar ! r2i))a, a2ting as his attorne*-in- a2t,signed the do2u(ent on the or(erAs 3eha) . Do/ever, sett)ed is the ru)ethat:! (e(3er o the 3ar /ho per or(s an a2t as a notar* pu3)i2 shou)d notnotari@e a do2u(ent un)ess the persons /ho signed the sa(e are the ver*sa(e persons /ho e?e2uted and persona))* appeared 3e ore hi(. #he a2tso the a9ants 2annot 3e de)egated to an*one or /hat are stated thereinare a2ts o /hi2h the* have persona) 0no/)edge. #he* shou)d s/ear to thedo2u(ent persona))* and not through an* representative. $ther/ise, theirrepresentativeAs na(e shou)d appear in the said do2u(ents as the one /hoe?e2uted the sa(e. #hat is the on)* ti(e the representative 2an a9? hissignature and persona))* appear 3e ore the notar* pu3)i2 or notari@ation othe said do2u(ent. Si(p)* put, the part* or parties /ho e?e2uted theinstru(ent (ust 3e the ones to persona))* appear 3e ore the notar* pu3)i2to a20no/)edge the do2u(ent .46

#hus, the herein su3Ee2t !9davit o Quit2)ai( (a* not 3e 3inding on Rene.Nonethe)ess, /ith or /ithout ReneAs parti2ipation in the >uit2)ai(,respondentAs o/nership o the su3Ee2t )ots has 3een esta3)ished 3*preponderan2e o eviden2e, as unani(ous)* ound 3* the M#C, the R#C andthe C!.;ina))*, petitioners ph*si2a) o22upation o the 2o((er2ia) 3ui)ding /hi2hthe* ere2ted on the disputed propert* does not ne2essari)* prove theiro/nership o the su3Ee2t )ots.

#his Court has he)d that:o/nership and possession are t/o entire)* diFerent )ega) 2on2epts. 'ust aspossession is not a de nite proo o o/nership, neither is non-possessionin2onsistent /ith o/nership. #he rst paragraph o !rti2)e 147 o the Civi)Code states that /hen the sa)e is (ade through a pu3)i2 instru(ent, thee?e2ution thereo sha)) 3e e>uiva)ent to the de)iver* o the thing /hi2h isthe o3Ee2t o the 2ontra2t, i ro( the deed the 2ontrar* does not appear or2annot 2)ear)* 3e in erred. P# e 6#n, al#n= 5694 #5ne" 46?, 69"an @e""ed 9# 94e endee 8y 6"9!e #@ 94e n#9a"6 ed deed #@7#n eyan7e. T4! , 6n l6=49 #@ 94e 76"7!m 9an7e #@ 94e ?"e en97a e, 69 6 #@ n# le=al 7#n e>!en7e 94a9 ?e9696#ne" d6d n#9 9a ea79!al ?# e 6#n #" #77!?a96#n #@ 94e d6 ?!9ed l#9 a@9e" 94e

e)e7!96#n #@ 94e deed #@ ale 6n 4e" @a #" 8e7a! e 4e 5a al"eadya8le 9# ?e"@e79 and 7#m?le9e 4e" #5ne" 46? #@ and 969le # e" 94e

!8 e79 ?"#?e"9y .48

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

16/29

18 | P a g e

Medina and Boni a2io Natividad. Boni a2io Natividad had )i0e/ise a)read*3ought the share o o(ini2a Medina in the )and.

#he parties entered into a 2o(pro(ise agree(ent /hi2h the* su3(itted tothe Court. $n + Nove(3er 17 7, the R#C approved the agree(ent andrendered its de2ision 3ased on the sa(e .8 #he Co(pro(ise !gree(ent as>uoted 3* the Court reads:C$MPR$MIS" !GR""M"N#C$M" N$ the parties, assisted 3* their respe2tive 2ounse)uare (eters, (oreor )ess, as 2o(pensation or va)ua3)e servi2es rendered ree and 2)ear ro(an*Ja)) )iens or en2u(3ran2es /hatsoever or ro( the 2)ai(s o an* person/ho(soever, e?2ept the present tenantJs thereon2. #o the heirs o M!RI! M" IN!, %ot No. + 2onsisting o 5 .+1 s>uare(eters, (ore or )ess, /ithout preEudi2e to sa)es and dispositions a)read*(ade 3* the respe2tive heirs o their interests and parti2ipations therein

d. #o #IRS$ M" IN!, %ot No. 4 2onsisting o 87.+7 s>uare (eters, (ore or)esse. #o the heirs o P!CI;IC$ M. RUI , %ot No. 6 2onsisting o 87.+7 s>uare(eters, (ore or )ess, and

. #o G$RG$NI! M" IN!, %ot No. 8, 2onsisting o 87.+7 s>uare (eters,(ore or )ess. 5$n $2to3er 1771, the tria) 2ourt issued an order supp)e(enting itsde2ision dated + Nove(3er 17 7 /hi2h reads in part:H# hat the parties therea ter, engaged the servi2es o one 2o((ongeodeti2 engineer in the person o Ro))* ;ran2is2o to 2ondu2t the surve*and eFe2t the su3division o %ot 1177, /hi2h /as su3divided into %ots !, B,C, , ", and ;, the area o /hi2h appears, thus:%ot 1177-! /ith an area o 51 s>. (s., /hi2h )ot no/ 2orresponds to %otNo. 4 adEudi2ated to #irso Medina%ot 1177-B /ith an area o 51 s>. (s., /hi2h )ot no/ 2orresponds to %otNo. 6 adEudi2ated to Pa2i 2o Rui@%ot 1177-C /ith an area o 51 s>. (s., /hi2h )ot no/ 2orresponds to %otNo. 8 adEudi2ated to Gorgonio Medina%ot 1177- /ith an area o 4 + s>. (s., /hi2h )ot no/ 2orresponds to %otNo. 1 adEudi2ated to Boni a2io Natividad%ot 1177-" /ith an area o 5+ s>. (s., /hi2h )ot no/ 2orresponds to %otNo. + adEudi2ated to Deirs o Maria Medina and%ot 1177-; /ith an area o 5+ s>. (s., /hi2h )ot no/ 2orresponds to %otNo. adEudi2ated to &iven2io M. Rui@ that in this su3division (ade 3* thegeodeti2 engineer, there /as no 2hange in the designation o the parti2u)arp)a2es adEudi2ated to the parties, e?2ept the 2hange in areas a))otted a terthe a2tua) surve* (ade.

D"R";$R", nding the (otion to 3e in order, the Court reso)ves to grantthe sa(e and here3* orders, that:%ot 1177-! /ith an area o 51 s>. (s. is %ot 4, de2ision, adEudi2ated to

#irso Medina%ot 1177-B /ith an area o 51 s>. (s. is %ot 6, de2ision, adEudi2ated toPa2i 2o Rui@%ot 1177-C /ith an area o 51 s>. (s. is %ot 8, de2ision, adEudi2ated toGorgonio Medina%ot 1177- /ith an area o 4 + s>. (s. is %ot 1, de2ision, adEudi2ated toBoni a2io Natividad%ot 1177-" /ith an area o 5+ s>. (s. is %ot +, de2ision, adEudi2ated toDeirs o Maria Medina%ot 1177-; /ith an area o 5+ s>. (s. is %ot , de2ision, adEudi2ated to&iven2io M. Rui@.

#his $rder supp)e(ents the e2ision dated Nove(3er + , 17 7 .Pursuant to the 2ourt-approved partition, %ot 1177-C, (easuring 51s>uare (eters, /as registered in the na(e o Gorgonio Median or /hi2h

#rans er Certi 2ate o #it)e

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

17/29

15 | P a g e

o22up*ing the said )and. Boni a2io as0s, a(ong other things, that 1J osaid )and 3e surrendered to hi( 3e2ause he had 3ought the sa(e ro(Gorgonio Medina. In the !ns/er 11 )ed 3* !3ie) Medina and &eroni2a deGu@(an, the* argued, inter a"ia , that Phi)ip Natividad had no )ega) 2apa2it*to sue 3e2ause the Spe2ia) Po/er o !ttorne* anne?ed to the Co(p)aint didnot grant hi( su2h authorit*. #he* urther added that the Co(p)aint ai)edto i(p)ead a)) the parties-in-interest 2onsidering that the o/nership o the)and 2overed 3* #C# No. N#-+ +4 had a)read* passed to e)even heirs oGorgonio Medina.Boni a2io, thru Phi)ip, )ed a Motion or Bi)) o Parti2u)ars1+ pra*ing that anorder 3e issued 3* the 2ourt dire2ting !3ie) Medina and &eroni2a deGu@(an to give the na(es and present addresses o a)) the heirs oGorgonio Medina. Said (otion /as opposed. 1 In an order dated 16 $2to3er+ 1, the tria) 2ourt granted the (otion. 14 e endants 2o(p)ied /ith the2ourtAs order and su3(itted the na(es and addresses o a)) the heirs oGorgonio Medina .16$n 5 'anuar* + +, Boni a2io )ed a Motion or %eave to !d(it !(endedCo(p)aint /ith pra*er that su((ons upon eight heirs 3e (ade throughpu3)i2ation. 18 #he !(ended Co(p)aint i(p)eaded a)) the heirs o GorgonioMedina

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

18/29

1 | P a g e

parti2ipation in the )and 0no/n as %ot 1177. !t the ti(e o the sa)e, %ot1177 /as not *et divided. Gorgonio Medina spe2i ed a portion o %ot 1177,e?pe2ting that portion to 3e adEudi2ated to hi(, 3ut his e?pe2tation did not(ateria)i@e 3e2ause a diFerent portion /as adEudi2ated to hi( during thepartition. It added that Eusti2e de(anded that a portion o /hat /asadEudi2ated to hi( 3e 2onsidered as the o3Ee2t o the deed o sa)e.

#he tria) 2ourt urther ru)ed that pres2ription and )a2hes did not set in.Sin2e there /as an e?press trust 2reated 3et/een Gorgonio Medina andBoni a2io Natividad, the a2tion to 2o(pe) the de endants to 2onve* thepropert* to Boni a2io did not pres2ri3e. It e?p)ained that it is on)* /hen thetrustee repudiates the trust that the pres2riptive period o 1 *ears2o((en2es to run. In the instant 2ase, Gorgonio Medina

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

19/29

17 | P a g e

o92e to 3e a (ere te2hni2a)it* and 2ou)d not 3e the 3asis or the dis(issa)o the 2o(p)aint or )a20 o 2ause o a2tion.$n his part, respondent said the notari@ed spe2ia) po/er o attorne* /hi2hhe appended to the 2o(p)aint is a pu3)i2 do2u(ent. It 2arries /ith it thepresu(ption o regu)arit* and an* suspi2ion on the authenti2it* and duee?e2ution thereo 2annot stand against said presu(ption a3sent eviden2e/hi2h is 2)ear and 2onvin2ing.

#he >uestion to 3e ans/ered is: Is the Spe2ia) Po/er o !ttorne* supposed)*authori@ing Phi)ip Natividad to )e the instant 2ase in 3eha) o his atherad(issi3)e in eviden2eOIn -opez v. Court of *ppea"s , /e have ru)ed that a spe2ia) po/er oattorne* e?e2uted in a oreign 2ountr* is, genera))*, not ad(issi3)e ineviden2e as a pu3)i2 do2u(ent in our 2ourts. In said 2ase, /e said:Is the spe2ia) po/er o attorne* re)ied upon 3* Mrs. #* a pu3)i2 do2u(entO

e nd that it is. It has 3een notari@ed 3* a notar* pu3)i2 or 3* a2o(petent pu3)i2 o92ia) /ith a)) the so)e(nities re>uired 3* )a/ o a pu3)i2do2u(ent. hen e?e2uted and a20no/)edged in the Phi)ippines, su2h apu3)i2 do2u(ent or a 2erti ed true 2op* thereo is ad(issi3)e in eviden2e.Its due e?e2ution and authenti2ation need not 3e proven un)i0e a private/riting.Se2tion +6, 4 Ru)e 1 + o the Ru)es o Court provides YSe2. +6. Proo o pu3)i2 or o92ia) re2ord. Y !n o92ia) re2ord or an entr*therein, /hen ad(issi3)e or an* purpose, (a* 3e eviden2ed 3* an o92ia)pu3)i2ation thereo or 3* a 2op* attested 3* the o92er having the )ega)2ustod* o the re2ord, or 3* his deput*, and a22o(panied, i the re2ord isnot 0ept in the Phi)ippines, /ith a 2erti 2ate that su2h o92er has the2ustod*. I the o92e in /hi2h the re2ord is 0ept is in a oreign 2ountr*, the2erti 2ate (a* 3e (ade 3* a se2retar* o e(3ass* or )egation, 2onsu)genera), 2onsu), vi2e 2onsu), or 2onsu)ar agent or 3* an* o92er in the

oreign servi2e o the Phi)ippines stationed in the oreign 2ountr* in /hi2hthe re2ord is 0ept, and authenti2ated 3* the sea) o his o92e.;ro( the oregoing provision, 54en 94e ?e76al ?#5e" #@ a99#"ney 6e)e7!9ed and a7 n#5led=ed 8e@#"e a n#9a"y ?!8l67 #" #94e"7#m?e9en9 # 76al 6n a @#"e6=n 7#!n9"y, 69 7ann#9 8e adm699ed 6ne 6den7e !nle 69 6 7e"96:ed a !74 6n a77#"dan7e 5694 94e@#"e=#6n= ?"# 6 6#n #@ 94e "!le 8y a e7"e9a"y #@ em8a y #"le=a96#n, 7#n !l =ene"al, 7#n !l, 67e 7#n !l, #" 7#n !la" a=en9 #"8y any # 7e" 6n 94e @#"e6=n e" 67e #@ 94e P46l6??6ne 9a96#ned 6n94e @#"e6=n 7#!n9"y 6n 54674 94e "e7#"d 6 e?9 #@ a6d ?!8l67d#7!men9 and a!94en967a9ed 8y 94e eal #@ 46 # 7e . ! 2it* Eudge-notar* /ho notari@ed the do2u(ent, as in this 2ase, 2annot issue su2h2erti 2ation.Considering that the re2ord o the 2ase does not dis2)ose an* 2o(p)ian2e/ith the provisions o Se2tion +6, Ru)e 1 + o the Ru)es o Court on the parto the petitioner, the spe2ia) po/er o attorne* in >uestion is not ad(issi3)ein eviden2e. !s su2h, Mrs. Pris2i))a %. #* 2annot )a/ u))* prose2ute the 2aseagainst the private respondents in the na(e o her prin2ipa) as herauthorit* through a spe2ia) po/er o attorne* had not 3een du)*esta3)ished in eviden2e. #he )itigation /as not 2o((en2ed 3* the rea)part*-in-interest or 3* one du)* authori@ed 3* the said part*.

#his 3eing so, the Metropo)itan #ria) Court, the Regiona) #ria) Court and theCourt o !ppea)s never a2>uired Eurisdi2tion over the person o the rea)part*-in-interest Y !nge)ita %ope@. ;or )a20 o the re>uisite Eurisdi2tion, a))the pro2eedings in the said 2ourts are nu)) and void a3 initio. !))pro2eedings therein shou)d 3e and are here3* set aside.!22ording)*, it is $ur 2onsidered opinion, and e so ho)d, that a spe2ia)po/er o attorne* e?e2uted 3e ore a 2it* Eudge-pu3)i2 notar* in a oreign2ountr*, /ithout the 2erti 2ation or authenti2ation re>uired under Se2tion+6, Ru)e 1 + o the Ru)es o Court, is not ad(issi3)e in eviden2e inPhi)ippine 2ourts.

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

20/29

+ | P a g e

SO ORDERED . G.R. N#. $'2/$%. N# em8e" '0, '33/

ENAIDA B. TIGNO, IMELDA B. TIGNO and ARMI B.TIGNO, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ESTAFINO A+UINOand FLORENTINA A+UINO and 94e HONORABLE COURT OFAPPEALS, respondents.D E C I S I O NTINGA, J.

#he 2ontrovers* in the present petition hinges on the ad(issi3i)it* o asing)e do2u(ent, a deed o sa)e invo)ving interest over rea) propert*,notari@ed 3* a person o >uestiona3)e 2apa2it*. #he assai)ed ru)ing o theCourt o !ppea)s, /hi2h overturned the ndings o a2t o the Regiona) #ria)Court, re)ied pri(ari)* on the presu(ption o regu)arit* atta2hing tonotari@ed do2u(ents /ith respe2t to its due e?e2ution. e 2on2)udeinstead that the do2u(ent has not 3een du)* notari@ed and a22ording)*reverse the Court o !ppea)s.

#he a2ts are as o))o/:$n 11 'anuar* 17 , respondent spouses "sta no and ;)orentina !>uinouinos= )ed a 2o(p)aint or en or2e(ent o 2ontra2t and da(agesagainst Isidro Bustria uinos o a one hundred t/ent* thousanduare (eter shpond )o2ated in as2i, Pangasinan. #hepropert* /as not registered either under the %and Registration !2t or underthe Spanish Mortgage %a/, though registra3)e under !2t No. 44. H+ #he2onve*an2e /as 2overed 3* a eed o Sa)e dated + Septe(3er 175 ."ventua))*, Bustria and the !>uinos entered into a 2o(pro(ise agree(ent,/here3* Bustria agreed to re2ogni@e the va)idit* o the sa)e, and the!>uinos in turn agreed to grant to Bustria the right to repur2hase the sa(epropert* a ter the )apse o seven uinos, and denied 3* the R#C. #hen, on 8Septe(3er 1771, #igno )ed an a2tion or Reviva" of Jud0ment ,H8 see0ingthe reviva) o the de2ision in Civi) Case No. !-1+65, so that it 2ou)d 3ee?e2uted a22ording)*. H5 #he !>uinos )ed an ans/er, /herein the* a))egedthat Bustria had so)d his right to repur2hase the propert* to the( in a deedo sa)e dated 15 $2to3er 17 6. H

!(ong the /itnesses presented 3* the !>uinos during tria) /ere 'esus e;ran2ia < e ;ran2ia=, the instru(enta) /itness to the deed o sa)e, and

or(er 'udge ;ran0)in Cari\o uino had raised the (atter o the deed o sa)e in hisprevious Opposition to the 'otion for Consi0nation .H18 #he R#C thenstressed that the previous 'otion for !xecution )odged 3* #igno had to 3edenied sin2e (ore than ve uinos interposed an appea) to the Court o !ppea)s. H1 In the(eanti(e, the R#C a))o/ed the e?e2ution pending appea) o its $ecision .H17 $n + e2e(3er 1778, the Court o !ppea)s #enth ivision pro(u)gateda $ecision H+ reversing and setting aside the R#C $ecision . #he appe))ate2ourt ratio2inated that there /ere no (ateria) or su3stantia) in2onsisten2ies3et/een the testi(onies o Cari\o and e ;ran2ia that /ou)d taint thedo2u(ent /ith dou3t u) authenti2it* that the a3sen2e o thea20no/)edg(ent and su3stitution instead o a

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

21/29

+1 | P a g e

ad(itted the $eed of (a"e. De a)so argues that the appe))ate 2ourt shou)dhave de2)ared the $eed of (a"e as a a)se, raudu)ent and unre)ia3)edo2u(ent not supported 3* an* 2onsideration at a)).

#he genera) thrusts o the argu(ents posed 3* #igno are a2tua))* 3ased.!s su2h, the* 2ou)d nor(a))* )ead to the dis(issa) o this Petition forRevie . Do/ever, /hi)e this Court is not ordinari)* a trier o a2ts ,H+ a2tua)revie/ (a* 3e /arranted in instan2es /hen the ndings o the tria) 2ourtand the inter(ediate appe))ate 2ourt are 2ontrar* to ea2h other.H+4 Moreover, petitioner raises a su3stantia) argu(ent regarding the2apa2it* o the notar* pu3)i2, 'udge Cari\o, to notari@e the do2u(ent. #heCourt o !ppea)s /as un ortunate)* si)ent on that (atter, 3ut this Court /i))ta0e it up /ith de nitiveness.

#he notaria) 2erti 2ation o the $eed of (a"e reads as o))o/s:!CLN$ %" GM"N#R"PUB%IC $; #D" PDI%IPPIN"S=PR$&INC" $; P!NG!SIN!N = S.S.MUNICIP!%I# $; !%!MIN$S =SUBSCRIB" !N S $RN #$ 3e ore (e this 15 th da* o $2to3er 17 6 at!)a(inos, Pangasinan 3oth parties 0no/n to (e to 3e the sa(e parties /hoe?e2uted the oregoing instru(ent.;R!NL%IN C!RI]$"?-$92io Notar* Pu3)i2

'udge, M.#.C.!)a(inos, Pangasinan #here are pa)pa3)e errors in this 2erti 2ation. Most g)aring)*, the do2u(entis 2erti ed 3* /a* o a

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

22/29

++ | P a g e

interest re>uires preventing those /ho are not >ua)i ed or authori@ed to a2tas notaries pu3)i2 ro( i(posing upon the pu3)i2 and the 2ourts andad(inistrative o92es genera))*. H41$n the other hand, /hat then is the eFe2t on the $eed of (a"e i it /as notnotari@edO #rue enough, ro( a 2ivi) )a/ perspe2tive, the a3sen2e onotari@ation o the $eed of (a"e /ou)d not ne2essari)* inva)idate thetransa2tion eviden2ed therein. !rti2)e 1 6 o the Civi) Code re>uires thatthe or( o a 2ontra2t that trans(its or e?tinguishes rea) rights overi((ova3)e propert* shou)d 3e in a pu3)i2 do2u(ent, *et it is a)so ana22epted ru)e that the ai)ure to o3serve the proper or( does not renderthe transa2tion inva)id. #hus, it has 3een uni or()* he)d that the or(re>uired in !rti2)e 1 6 is not essentia) to the va)idit* or en or2ea3i)it* othe transa2tion, 3ut re>uired (ere)* or 2onvenien2e. H4+ e have evena9r(ed that a sa)e o rea) propert* though not 2onsigned in a pu3)i2instru(ent or or(a) /riting, is neverthe)ess va)id and 3inding a(ong theparties, or the ti(e-honored ru)e is that even a ver3a) 2ontra2t o sa)e orrea) estate produ2es )ega) eFe2ts 3et/een the parties. H4Sti)), the Court has to re20on /ith the i(p)i2ations o the )a20 o va)idnotari@ation o the $eed of (a"e ro( the perspe2tive o the )a/ oneviden2e. ! ter a)), the 2ase rests on the ad(issi3i)it* o the $eed of (a"e .C)ear)*, the presu(ption o regu)arit* re)ied upon 3* the Court o !ppea)sno )onger ho)ds true sin2e the $eed of (a"e is not a notari@ed do2u(ent. Itsproper pro3ative va)ue is governed 3* the Ru)es o Court. Se2tion 17, Ru)e1 + states:Se2tion 17. C"asses of documents. X;or the purpose o their presentation ineviden2e, do2u(ents are either pu3)i2 or private.P!8l67 d#7!men9 a"e

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

23/29

+ | P a g e

this 2ase, the a3sen2e o su2h proo urther (i)itates against the 2)ai(s othe !>uinos.

e 2an appre2iate in a si(i)ar vein the o3servation o the Court o !ppea)sthat Bustria did not 3other to see0 his )a/*erAs assistan2e as regards thee?e2ution o the $eed of (a"e , 2onsidering that the su3Ee2t propert* hadprevious)* 3een er2e)* )itigated. !)though the Court o !ppea)s /as 2orre2tin ru)ing that the do2u(ent /ou)d not 3e rendered nu)) or ineFe2tive due tothe )a20 o assistan2e o 2ounse), the i(p)ausi3i)it* o the s2enario stri0esas odd and there ore rein or2es the version ound 3* the R#C as 2redi3)e.

#he Court )i0e/ise has its o/n o3servations on the re2ord that a9r( thedou3ts raised 3* the Court o !ppea)s. Isidro Bustria, /ho /ou)d die in17 8, /as a)read* ninet*-three uestion o /hether or not Bustria signedthe $eed of (a"e .Do/ever, as ear)ier esta3)ished, the $eed of (a"e is a private do2u(ent.

#hus, not on)* the due e?e2ution o the do2u(ent (ust 3e proven 3ut a)soits authenti2it*. #his a2tor /as not du)* 2onsidered 3* the Court o !ppea)s.

#he testi(onies o 'udge Cari\o and e ;ran2ia no/ 3e2o(e (ateria) noton)* to esta3)ish due e?e2ution, 3ut a)so the authenti2it* o the $eed of(a"e . !nd on this point, the in2onsisten2ies pointed out 3* the R#C 3e2o(e2ru2ia).

#he (atter o authenti2it* o the $eed of (a"e 3eing disputed, the identit*o the progenitor o this a))-i(portant do2u(ent is a (ateria) evidentiar*point. It is dis2on2erting that the ver* t/o /itnesses o the respondentoFered to prove the $eed of (a"e , at)* 2ontradi2t ea2h other on the 3asiso their o/n persona) and sensor* 0no/)edge. orse, the purported authoro the $eed of (a"e disavo/ed having dra ted the do2u(ent,not/ithstanding the 2ontrar* testi(on* grounded on persona) 0no/)edge3* the do2u(entar* /itness."sta3)ishing the identit* o the person /ho /rote the $eed of (a"e /ou)dnot ordinari)* 3e ne2essar* to esta3)ish the va)idit* o the transa2tion it2overs. Do/ever, sin2e it is the authenti2it* o the do2u(ent itse) that isdisputed, then the opposing testi(onies on that point 3* the (ateria)/itnesses proper)* raises >uestions a3out the due e?e2ution o thedo2u(ent itse) . #he in2onsisten2ies in the testi(onies o 'udge Cari\o ande ;ran2ia are irre2on2i)a3)e. It is not possi3)e to a9r( the testi(on* oeither /ithout denigrating the 2o(peten2e and 2redi3i)it* o the other as a/itness. I 'udge Cari\o /as truth u) in testi *ing that he did not /ritethe $eed of (a"e , then dou3t 2an 3e 2ast as to the re)ia3i)it* o the notaria)/itness e ;ran2ia. It ta0es a )eap o i(agination, a high )eve) o gu(ption,and perverse de)i3eration or one to erroneous)* assert, under oath and/ith parti2u)arities, that a person dra ted a parti2u)ar do2u(ent in hispresen2e.Do/ever, i /e /ere to instead 3e)ieve e ;ran2ia, then the integrit* o thenotar* pu3)i2, 'udge Cari\o, /ou)d 3e o3vious)* 2o(pro(ised. !ssu(ingthat 'udge Cari\o had indeed authored the $eed of (a"e , it /ou)d indeed 3eodd that he /ou)d not re(e(3er having /ritten the do2u(ent hi(se) *etsu92ient)* re2a)) notari@ing the sa(e. I his testi(on* as to authorship othe do2u(ent is dee(ed as du3ious, then there is a)) the reason to (a0e asi(i)ar assu(ption as to his testi(on* on the notari@ation o the $eed of(a"e .

#hese in2onsisten2ies are not o 2onse>uen2e 3e2ause there is need toindu3ita3)* esta3)ish the author o the $eed of (a"e . #he* are i(portant3e2ause the* 2ast dou3t on the 2redi3i)it* o those /itnesses o the!>uinos, presented as the* /ere to attest to the due e?e2ution andauthenti2it* o the $eed of (a"e . #he Court o !ppea)s /as 2)ear)* in error inpere(ptori)* disregarding this o3servation o the R#C.!s a resu)t, /e are )ess /i))ing than the Court o !ppea)s to i(pute2on2)usive va)ue to the testi(onies o de ;ran2ia and 'udge Cari\o. #hetota)it* o the pi2ture )eads us to agree /ith the tria) 2ourt that the $eed of(a"e is ine)u2ta3)* du3ious in origin and in e?e2ution. #he Court dee(s as2orre2t the re usa) o the R#C to ad(it the $eed of (a"e , sin2e its due

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/129416.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/129416.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/129416.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/129416.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/129416.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/129416.htm#_ftn48

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

24/29

+4 | P a g e

e?e2ution and authenti2it* have not 3een proven. #he eviden2e pointing tothe non-e?isten2e o su2h a transa2tion is so 2)ear and 2onvin2ing that it issu92ient even to re3ut the t*pi2a) presu(ption o regu)arit* arising ro(the due e?e2ution o notaria) do2u(ents. Do/ever, or the reasons statedear)ier, the $eed of (a"e is ine)u2ta3)* an unnotari@ed do2u(ent. !nd the)o/er 2ourt had (ore than su92ient 3asis to 2on2)ude that it is a spuriousdo2u(ent.Sin2e the va)idit* o the $eed of (a"e has 3een su22ess u))* assai)ed, #ignoAs right to repur2hase /as not e?tinguished at the ti(e o the )ing othe Petition or reviva) o Eudg(ent, as 2orre2t)* 2on2)uded 3* the R#C. #heCourt o !ppea)s 3eing in error /hen it 2on2)uded other/ise, thereinstate(ent o the R#C $ecision is /arranted.;HEREFORE , the Petition is GR!N#" . #he assai)ed $ecision dated +

e2e(3er 1778 and Reso"ution dated 7 'une 1775 o the Court o !ppea)sin C!-G.R. C& No. 47 57 is R"&"RS" , and the $ecision dated 1 !ugust1774 o the Regiona) #ria) Court o !)a(inos, Pangasinan, Bran2h 66, in Civi)Case No. !-171 is R"INS#!#" . Costs against respondents.SO ORDERED.

P!N P!CI;IC IN US#RI!% G.R. No. 1+6+S!%"S C$., INC.,

Petitioner, Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairman, - versus - C!RPI$, C!RPI$-M$R!%"S, and #ING!, JJ. C$UR# $; !PP"!%S and NIC$%!S C!PIS#R!N$, Pro(u)gated: Respondents. ;e3ruar* 1 , + 8 ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------?

D E C I S I O N

#ING!, J.:

Petitioner Pan Pa2i 2 Industria) Sa)es Co., In2.

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

25/29

+6 | P a g e

Mani)a, Bran2h 11, do20eted as Civi) Case No. 5-4 845, to enEoin theore2)osure. Cru@ i(p)eaded Capistrano and his spouse 'ose a Borro(eo

Capistrano as de endants, the tit)e to the su3Ee2t )ot not having 3eentrans erred *et to his na(e. H1

Cru@ a)so devised a /a* to save the su3Ee2t )ot ro( ore2)osure 3*see0ing a 3u*er or it and eventua))* arranging or the 3u*er to pa* the(ortgage de3t. #o/ards this end, Cru@ su22eeded in engaging Pan Pa2i 2. #hus, on ++ Septe(3er 17 , Pan Pa2i 2 paid oF Cru@As de3t in the a(ounto P1,1 , . .H17 Conse>uent)*, on + Septe(3er

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn19

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

26/29

+8 | P a g e

17 , the Ban0 e?e2uted a Can2e))ation o Rea) "state Mortgage. H+ $neven date, Cru@ e?e2uted a eed o !3so)ute Sa)e H+1 over the su3Ee2t )ot in

avor o Pan Pa2i 2, atta2hing thereto the previous eed o !3so)uteSa)e e?e2uted 3* Capistrano in avor o Cru@.

Surprising)*, on + $2to3er 17 , Capistrano )ed a Revo2ation oSpe2ia) Po/er o !ttorne* H++ /ith the Register o eeds o Mani)a. %ess thana /ee0 )ater, Capistrano sent the Register o eeds another )etter in or(ingsaid o92er o his having 2o(e to 0no/ o the sa)e o the su3Ee2t )ot 3* Cru@to Pan Pa2i 2 and re>uesting the o92er to /ithho)d an* a2tion on thetransa2tion. H+

Be ore )ong, in Nove(3er 17 , Capistrano )ed the pre2ursor*2o(p)aint 3e ore the Mani)a R#C in Civi) Case No. -485+ .

Pan Pa2i 2, /hi2h 3ought the su3Ee2t )ot ro( the Cru@ spouses, /asa))o/ed to intervene in the pro2eedings and Eoined Cru@, et a". in resistingthe 2o(p)aint inso ar as the rst 2ause o a2tion on the su3Ee2t )ot is2on2erned .H+4

#hen on +4 !pri) 177+, a e2ision /as rendered 3* the tria) 2ourt inavor o Capistrano on 3oth 2auses o a2tion, the dispositive portion o

/hi2h reads as o))o/s: D"R";$R", Eudg(ent is here3* rendered in avor o the p)aintiF

and against the de endant, Severo ". uestion. H+5

#he Court o !ppea)s a9r(ed the R#C e2ision. Con2erning thesu3Ee2t )ot, it he)d that /hi)e a notaria) do2u(ent 2annot 3e disproved 3*the (ere denia) o the signer, the denia) in this 2ase shou)d 3e ta0entogether /ith the other 2ir2u(stan2es o the 2ase /hi2h in su( 2onstitute2)ear and 2onvin2ing eviden2e su92ient to over2o(e the presu(ption oregu)arit* o the do2u(ents. H+

#he Cru@ spouses did not e)evate the Court o !ppea)sA e2ision tothis Court. #hus, the R#C e2ision 3e2a(e na) as to the(.

Pan Pa2i 2, ho/ever, )ed the instant Petition so)e)* 2on2erning therst 2ause o a2tion in the ! (ended Co(p)aint . Pan Pa2i 2 2ontends that

the genuineness and due e?e2ution o the eed o !3so)uteSa)e and Marita) Consent 2annot 3e overridden 3* the se) -servingtesti(on* o Capistrano. It stresses that the tria) 2ourt 2annot re)* onirre)evant e?trinsi2 a2tors to ru)e against the genuineness o the deed.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn28

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

27/29

+5 | P a g e

H+7 ;ina))*, it points out that Capistrano 2annot 2ontest the sa)e o thesu3Ee2t )ot to Cru@, as the sa)e had a)read* 3een 2onsu((ated. H

;or his part, Capistrano posits in his Me(orandu( H 1 that Pan Pa2i 2is not an inno2ent pur2haser or va)ue and in good aith as Cru@ /as neverthe registered o/ner o the su3Ee2t )ot. Pan Pa2i 2 /as 3ound at its peri) toinvestigate the right o Cru@ to trans er the propert* to it. Moreover,

Capistrano asserts that the )ega) presu(ption o regu)arit* o pu3)i2do2u(ents does not o3tain in this 2ase as the do2u(ents in >uestion /erenot proper)* notari@ed. De adds that the parties never appeared 3e ore thenotar* pu3)i2 as in a2t the deed had on)* 3een de)ivered 3* Capistrano tothe house o Cru@As (other.

;urther(ore, Capistrano (aintains that his spouseAs signature onthe Marita) Consent is a orger* as it /as virtua))* i(possi3)e or her tohave signed the sa(e. %ast)*, Capistrano disputes Cru@As assertion that thesa)e had 3een 2onsu((ated, pointing out that the !(endedCo(p)aint 2onsisted o t/o uestion o )a/ 2ogni@a3)e 3* the Court. H +

eep)* e(3edded in our Eurispruden2e is the ru)e that notaria)do2u(ents 2e)e3rated /ith a)) the )ega) re>uisites under the sa eguard o anotaria) 2erti 2ate is eviden2e o a high 2hara2ter and to over2o(e itsre2ita)s, it is in2u(3ent upon the part* 2ha))enging it to prove his 2)ai( /ith2)ear, 2onvin2ing and (ore than (ere)* preponderant eviden2e. H

! notari@ed do2u(ent 2arries the evidentiar* /eight 2on erred uponit /ith respe2t to its due e?e2ution, and it has in its avor the presu(ptiono regu)arit* /hi2h (a* on)* 3e re3utted 3* eviden2e so 2)ear, strong and2onvin2ing as to e?2)ude a)) 2ontrovers* as to the a)sit* o the 2erti 2ate.!3sent su2h, the presu(ption (ust 3e uphe)d. #he 3urden o proo toover2o(e the presu(ption o due e?e2ution o a notaria) do2u(ent )ies onthe one 2ontesting the sa(e. ;urther(ore, an a))egation o orger* (ust 3eproved 3* 2)ear and 2onvin2ing eviden2e, and /hoever a))eges it has the3urden o proving the sa(e. H 4

"vident)*, as he i(pugns the genuineness o the do2u(ents,Capistrano has the 3urden o (a0ing out a 2)ear-2ut 2ase that thedo2u(ents are 3ogus. #he 2ourts 3e)o/ 3oth 2on2)uded that Capistrano

had dis2harged this 3urden. Do/ever, this Court does not share the2on2)usion. Indeed, Capistrano ai)ed to present eviden2e o the orger*that is enough to over2o(e the presu(ption o authenti2it*.

#o support the a))egation o the spuriousness o his signature onthe eed o !3so)ute Sa)e and that o his /i e on the Marita) Consent,Capistrano re)ied heavi)* on his 3are denia), at the sa(e ti(e ta0ing

san2tuar* 3ehind other 2ir2u(stan2es /hi2h supposed)* 2ast dou3t onthe authenti2it* o the do2u(ents. Capistrano did not 3other to present2orro3orating /itnesses (u2h )ess an independent e?pert /itness /ho2ou)d de2)are /ith authorit* and o3Ee2tivit* that the 2ha))enged signaturesare orged. It 3e udd)es the Court /h* 3oth the 2ourts 3e)o/ did not ndthis irregu)ar 2onsidering that the Court has previous)* de2)ared in (

ian0co v. Pab"o and *pao ,,H 6 Vthat the e?e2ution o a do2u(ent that has3een rati ed 3e ore a notar* pu3)i2 2annot 3e disproved 3* the (ere denia)o the a))eged signer.W

#he 2ase o Chi"ianchin v. Co%uinco H 8 a)so nds app)i2ation in thisregard /herein /e stated that:

!s the )o/er 2ourt 2orre2t)* said, the p)aintiF did not even present asa(p)e o his authenti2 signature to support his 2ontention that it is not histhe uestion is genuine, the p)aintiF /i))a)so present an e?pert to the 2ontrar*, as i it /ere in2u(3ent upon thede endant to sho/ that the signature o the p )aintiF in "?hi3it ! is genuine .. . . H 5

Coro))ari)*, he /ho disavo/s the authenti2it* o his signature on apu3)i2 do2u(ent 3ears the responsi3i)it* to present eviden2e to that eFe2t.Mere dis2)ai(er is not su92ient. !t the ver* )east, he shou)d present2orro3orating /itnesses to prove his assertion. !t 3est, he shou)d presentan e?pert /itness. $n the other hand, the Court 2annot understand /h* an un avora3)ein eren2e arose not ro( CapistranoAs 3ut ro( Cru@As ai)ure to have thedo2u(ents e?a(ined 3* an e?pert /itness o the Nationa) BureauInvestigation

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

28/29

+ | P a g e

Den2e it is not in2u(3ent upon Cru@ to 2a)) the notar* pu3)i2 or an e?pert/itness. In 2ontrast, Capistrano shou)d have 2a))ed the e?pert /itness, thenotar* pu3)i2 hi(se) or the /itnesses to the do2u(ent to prove his2ontention that he never signed the deed o sa)e , that its su3s2ri3ing/itnesses never sa/ hi( sign the sa(e, and that he never appeared 3e orethe notar* pu3)i2 3e ore /ho( the a20no/)edg(ent /as (ade.

In a2t, there is no eviden2e that the notari@ation o the do2u(entsdid not ta0e p)a2e. !)) that Capistrano 2ou)d sa* on this (atter /as that hehad not seen Benedi2to, the notar* pu3)i2. H 7 #he assertion that the partiesto the deed never appeared 3e ore the notar* pu3)i2 is not supported 3*eviden2e either. #he 2ourts 3e)o/ dre/ an in eren2e to that eFe2t ro(Cru@As testi(on* that the deed o sa)e /as dropped or de)ivered to his(otherAs house. H4 #hat is not a reasona3)e dedu2tion to (a0e as it isp)ain)* 2onEe2tura). No 2on2)usion 2an 3e derived there ro( /hi2h 2ou)ddestro* the genuineness o the deed. #he testi(on* (eans /hat itde2)ares: that the 2op* o the deed /as dropped at the house o Cru@As(other. #hat is a)).

Nor 2an the Court )end 2reden2e to the thin0ing o the 2ourts 3e)o/that sin2e Cru@ had a 3a)an2e o P1 +, 81. o/ing to Capistrano as o thedate o the deed o sa)e, the )atter 2ou)d not have possi3)* e?e2uted thedeed. #his is p)ain guess/or0. ;ro( the e?isten2e o Cru@As outstanding3a)an2e, the non-e?isten2e o the deed o sa)e does not ne2essari)* o))o/.

Indeed, a vendor (a* agree to a deed o a3so)ute sa)e even 3e oreu)) pa*(ent o the pur2hase pri2e. !rti2)e 145 o the Civi) Code states

that Vthe parties (a* stipu)ate that o/nership in the thing sha)) not pass tothe pur2haser unti) he has u))* paid the pri2e.W * sensu contrario , theparties (a* )i0e/ise stipu)ate that the o/nership o the propert* (a* passeven i the pur2haser has not u))* paid the pri2e.

#he 2ourts 3e)o/ a)so assigned an adverse 2onnotation to Cru@Asi(p)eading o the Capistrano spouses as part*-de endants in the a2tionagainst the Ban0 to enEoin the ore2)osure o the (ortgage on the su3Ee2t)ot. Cru@As (ove is 2ongruent /ith 3oth his strong desire to prote2t hisinterest in the su3Ee2t )ot and the rea)it* that there /as an e?isting deed osa)e in his avor. Pre2ise)*, his interest in the )ot is 3orne out and had arisen

ro( the deed o sa)e. !s pur2haser o the )ot, he had to avert theore2)osure o the (ortgage thereon. !nd to ensure against the dis(issa) o

the a2tion or ai)ure to Eoin a rea) part*-in-interest, he had to i(p)eadCapistrano in /hose na(e the tit)e to the su3Ee2t )ot /as registered sti)).

!part ro( CapistranoAs a3Ee2t ai)ure to over2o(e the presu(ptiono regu)arit* and genuineness /ith /hi2h the eed o !3so)ute Sa)e isi(pressed as a pu3)i2 do2u(ent, CapistranoAs 2ause is evis2erated 3* hiso/n a2ts in /riting 3e ore and a ter the e?e2ution o the deed. Said /ritten

a2ts 2onstitute inde)i3)e re2ognition o the e?isten2e and genuineness othe eed o !3so)ute Sa)e.

;irst is the )etter-agree(ent H41 dated + Septe(3er 17 + (ade andsigned 3* Capistrano in avor o Cru@, /hi2h the )atter a)so signedsu3se>uent)*, stating that Cru@ /i)), as he did, pur2hase the su3Ee2t )ot

or P 6 , . to 3e paid a22ording to the ter(s provided therein.

Se2ond is the State(ent o !22ount H4+ signed 3* Capistrano, /hi2hhe de)ivered to Cru@, sho/ing that as o $2to3er 17 6, Cru@As 3a)an2e o the stipu)ated pur2hase pri2e 2onsisted o P17,681. as prin2ipa)and P ,6+ .7 as interest, or a tota) o P+ , 1.7 .

#hird is CapistranoAs !(ended Co(p)aint itse) /hi2h i))ustrates hiso/n (ani est un2ertaint* as to the re)ie he /as see0ing in 2ourt. Dede(anded that the eed o !3so)ute Sa)e 3e nu))i ed *et he pra*ed in thesa(e 3reath or the Vres2issionW o the sa(e H4 Xevident)*, a se) -de eatingre2ognition o the 2ontra2t. In as0ing or Vres2ission,W Capistrano o3vious)*/as invo0ing !rti2)e 1171 o the Civi) Code /hi2h provides that the Vpo/erto res2ind,W /hi2h rea))* (eans to reso)ve or 2an2e), is i(p)ied in re2ipro2a)o3)igations Vin 2ase one o the o3)igors shou)d not 2o(p)* /ith /hat isin2u(3ent upon hi(.W hen a part* as0s or the reso)ution or 2an2e))ationo a 2ontra2t it is i(p)ied that he re2ogni@es its e?isten2e. ! non-e?istent2ontra2t need not 3e 2an2e))ed.

#hese are un(ista0a3)e /ritten ad(issions o Capistrano that herea))* intended to se)) the su3Ee2t )ot to Cru@ and that he re2eivedpa*(ents or it ro( the )atter as )ate as the *ear 17 6. It is thus a )itt)e3a ing /h* in 17 , he de2ided to diso/n the eed o !3so)ute Sa)e. #he(ost p)ausi3)e e?p)anation or his sudden 2hange o (ind /ou)d 3e his3e)ated rea)i@ation that he parted /ith the su3Ee2t )ot or too s(a)) ana(ount

8/12/2019 CASES 19-40

29/29

+7 | P a g e

;ro( the perspe2tive o the )a/ on eviden2e, ho/ever, thepresu(ption o regu)arit* does not ho)d true /ith respe2t to theMarita)Consent /hi2h is a private /riting. It is su3Ee2t to the re>uire(ent o proounder Se2tion + , Ru)e 1 + o the Ru)es o Court /hi2h states:

Se2tion + . Proof of private document. - Be ore an* privatedo2u(ent oFered as authenti2 is re2eived in eviden2e, its due e?e2utionand authenti2it* (ust 3e proved either: uate)* (et, in this 2ase, through the testi(on* o Cru@ tothe eFe2t that, together /ith the other /itnesses to the do2u(ent, he /aspresent /hen CapistranoAs /i e a9?ed her signature thereon 3e ore notar*pu3)i2 Benedi2to. H45 &ie/ed against this positive de2)aration, CapistranoAsnegative and se) -serving assertions that his /i eAs signature on thedo2u(ent /as orged 3e2ause Vuestion o /hether or not Pan Pa2i 2 is a pur2haserin good aith shou)d 3e dee(ed irre)evant.

D"R";$R", the Petition is GR!N#" . #he e2ision dated 4 'une1778 o the Court o !ppea)s in C!-G.R. C& No. 4111+ is R"&"RS" andS"# !SI ". Respondent Ni2o)as Capistrano is ordered to surrender the

o/nerAs dup)i2ate 2erti 2ate o #rans er o Certi 2ate o #it)e No. 14 677 tothe Register o eeds o Mani)a to ena3)e the issuan2e o a ne/ tit)e overthe su3Ee2t )ot in the na(e o petitioner Pan Pa2i 2 Industria) Sa)es,In2. Costs against respondent Ni2o)as Capistrano. S$ $R "R" .

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/feb2006/G.R.%20No.%20125283.htm#_ftn47