the owner thereof; he paid the taxes on the property conscientiously

from the time he acquired the

385

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 8, 1999

385

Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals

same to the time he sold the same to co-plaintiff DOMINIUM; he
was in continuous possession of the property during the said period;
he paid the tenant, Nemesio Marquez, the disturbance fee required
under the Land Reform Law.
(pp. 102-103, Rollo.)

The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not err in holding that

since the deed of conveyance to Maxima was found to be
spurious, it necessarily follows that OCT No. (0-941) 0-198
issued in her name is null and void. This is because the
registration will not invalidate a forged or invalid
document.
I, therefore, vote to dismiss the petition and to affirm
the decision appealed from.
Assailed decision and resolution reversed.
Notes.The relation of the witness to the victim does
not in itself disqualify him on grounds of bias and undue
interest. (People vs. Silvestre, 244 SCRA 479 [1995])
The wise use of a trial judges discretion to question
witnesses to clear up obscurities in their testimonies and
sworn statements cannot be assailed as a specie of bias.
(People vs. Malabago, 265 SCRA 198 [1996])
o0o
386

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.