Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED standard/sample signatures of the deceased Magdalena Rondael

Garrido vs. Court of Appeals were not written by one and the same person,
_________________
G.R. No. 101262. September 14, 1994. *

SPOUSES ALBERTO GARRIDO AND COLOMA DAGURO, * FIRST DIVISION.


petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES 451
RUFINO AND CONRADA SUPLEMENTO, respondents.
VOL. 236, SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 451
Actions; Parties; Donation; Only the donor or his heirs have the
Garrido vs. Court of Appeals
personality to question the violation of any restriction in the deed of
donation.—We find for respondents. Petitioners have no personality hence, a forgery. Admittedly, the NBI report was never
to question the violation of the restriction because they are not heirs adduced before the lower courts; in fact, it is presented for the first
of the donor. When the donee fails to comply with any of the time and only before this Court. Obviously, this is not a newly
conditions imposed by the donor, it is the donor who has the right to discovered evidence within the purview of Sec. 1, par. (b), Rule 37,
impugn the validity of the transaction affecting the donated of the Rules of Court. Petitioners should have thought of having the
property, conformably with Art. 764 of the Civil Code, which signature of Magdalena Rondael on the deed of sale examined when
provides that the right to revoke may be transmitted to the heirs of the case was still with the trial court. Nothing would have stopped
the donor and may be exercised against the heirs of the donee, and them from doing so. Hence, it is now late, too late in fact, to present
the action prescribes four years after the violation of the condition. it before this Court.
Same; Same; Same; Appeals; An unassigned error closely Same; Same; Same; New Trial; A motion for new trial should
related to an error properly assigned, or upon which the be filed before the trial court and within the period for appeal.—
determination of the question properly assigned is dependent, may Petitioners’ reliance on the NBI report as basis for new trial on the
be considered by the appellate court.—Petitioners’ lack of capacity to ground of “newly discovered evidence” is a mistake. In the first
question the non-compliance with the condition is intimately place, the rule is explicit that a motion for new trial should be filed
connected with the issue regarding the validity of the sale on before the trial court and within the period for appeal.
account of the prohibition in the deed of donation. Thus, we have Same; Same; Same; Same; “Newly Discovered” Evidence,
established the rule that an unassigned error closely related to an requisites.—In the second place, in order that a particular piece of
error properly assigned, or upon which the determination of the evidence may be properly regarded as “newly discovered” for the
question properly assigned is dependent, may be considered by the purpose of granting new trial, the following requisites must concur:
appellate court. (a) the evidence had been discovered after trial; (b) the evidence
Same; Evidence; Newly Discovered Evidence; Forgery; A could not have been discovered and produced during trial even with
showing that the signature in a document is a forgery should be the exercise of reasonable diligence; and, (c) the evidence is material
adduced before the trial court, and it will be too late to present it and not merely corroborative, cumulative or impeaching and is of
before the Supreme Court.—Petitioners also submit that the finding such weight that if admitted would probably alter the result.
of the appellate court that the signature of Magdalena Rondael in Same; Same; Same; Same; At the pith of these requirements is
the Deed of Absolute Sale is genuine has been overtaken by events. that what is essential is that the offering party had exercised
In a letter dated 1 August 1991, the Regional Director of the NBI, reasonable diligence in producing or locating such evidence before or
Iloilo City, furnished the Iloilo City Prosecutor with a copy of NBI during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it.—At the pith of
Questioned Document Report No. 413-791 dated 23 July 1991, these requirements is that what is essential is not so much the time
purporting to show that the questioned signature as well as the when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time
when it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it;
rather, that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in transfer or cede the same. When he died, Consolacion
producing or locating such evidence before or during trial but had inherited the remaining half of Lot 209 which, in turn, was
nonetheless failed to secure it. The NBI report does not qualify as inherited by Magdalena upon the death of Consolacion.
newly discovered evidence because the second requirement was not Consequently, the entire Lot 209 was registered in the name
complied with. Petitioners did not exercise reasonable diligence in
of Magdalena Rondael, married to Lorenzo Daguro, under
procuring such evidence before or during trial.
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-13089.
Same; Same; Forgery; The party who alleges forgery has the
burden of proving the same.—Having alleged forgery, petitioners In 1973 Magdalena sold a portion of Lot 209 (Lot 209-B) to
had the burden of proof. Here, they utterly failed. They even Mariano Platinos and Florida Macahilo. The remaining
attached to their complaint five receipts purportedly signed by portion (Lot 209-A) with an area of 343 square meters is the
Magdalena but, subject of this litigation.
452 In 1976 Lorenzo Daguro died. Magdalena then filed before
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition to cancel the lien
prohibiting her from disposing of Lot 209-A because she
ANNOTATED
needed money for her subsistence and medical expenses as she
Garrido vs. Court of Appeals
was then in her 80’s. Besides, she was sickly. Her deposition
1

except for one which was signed “Magdalena Rondael,” said


on oral
receipts were signed “Magdalena Daguro.” Besides, there is no _______________
showing that the signatures presented as bases for comparison are
themselves genuine. 1 Exh. “4”; Records, pp. 181-183.
Same; Notarial Law; A notarized document carries the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due 453
execution.—On the other hand, the Deed of Absolute Sale is a VOL. 236, SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 453
notarized document which carries the evidentiary weight conferred Garrido vs. Court of Appeals
upon such public document with respect to its due execution. examination in connection with her petition was taken on 24
January 1979. 2

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court On 17 August 1978, during the pendency of her petition,
of Appeals. Magdalena executed a Conditional Deed of Sale of Lot 209-A
in favor of respondent spouses Rufino and Conrada
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Suplemento “subject to the lien subsisting and annotated on
Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioners.
the face of the Certificate of Title.” Magdalena agreed to bear
3

Franklin J. Andrada for private respondents.


the cost of the cancellation of the lien and respondents to be
BELLOSILLO, J.: bound thereby as long as it subsisted, with the understanding
that in the event the lien was not cancelled, the amount
Tomas Hingco, a widower, originally owned Lot 209 of the already paid would be refunded. It was further stipulated that
Dingle Cadastre, Iloilo. He married Consolacion Rondael, a “out of the Nineteen Thousand (P19,000.00) consideration x x
widow, who had a daughter Magdalena Rondael. In 1947 he x only Three Thousand (P3,000.00) pesos x x x shall be paid
donated one half (1/2) of Lot 209 to his stepdaughter pro rata monthly for ten (10) years and to convene
Magdalena subject to the condition that she could not sell, (commence?) one (1) year from the date of this Deed.” 4
On 24 January 1979 the petition for cancellation of fictitious since Magdalena’s signature thereon “appears to
encumbrance was denied for the reason that the ground cited have been traced” and Lorenzo Daguro’s signature was
for the cancellation was not one of those allowed by Sec. 112 of likewise a forgery since he died prior to the execution thereof,
Act 496 and that Magdalena failed to produce the deed of or on 9 October 1976. 8

donation which contained the alleged restriction. Nonetheless, The trial court, relying on the deposition of Magdalena on
on 19 July 1979 Magdalena executed with the conformity of 24 January 1979, found that she wanted to sell and did in fact
her husband a Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 209-A in sell Lot 209-A to the Suplementos. In addition, the court found
favor of respondents, spouses Rufino and Conrada that the genuineness of Lorenzo Daguro’s signature was not
Suplemento. The deed was notarized on the same date. On 13
5 germane to the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale as said
April 1982, Magdalena died. On 2 December 1982 TCT No. T- signature was not necessary to convey title to the paraphernal
108689 was issued in the name of the Suplementos. 6 property of Magdalena. To petitioners’ credit, it held that no
Magdalena had two (2) daughters but only one is still living, evidence was adduced by respondents to show payment of any
Coloma Daguro, married to Alberto Garrido, the spouses being installment of the balance of the purchase price to Magdalena
the petitioners herein. They were based in Davao City and before her death or to her heir, Coloma. Thus, judgment was
would visit Magdalena only on occasions. In February 1984, rendered on 19
Alberto Garrido visited the Suplementos in the house where October 1988 declaring the sale of 19 July 1979 valid but
Magdalena used to live. He wanted to find out if the taxes on
7 ordering the Suplementos to pay petitioners P16,000.00 with
the house were legal rate of interest until fully paid. 9

_________________ On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling


of the Iloilo trial court in its decision of 27 February 1991 and 10
2 Exh. “7”; Records, pp. 189-195.
3 Exh. “1”; Records, p. 176.
denied reconsideration on 29 July 1991. 11

4 Ibid. Petitioners contend that the appellate court erred in


5 Exh. “5”; Records, pp. 178-179.
holding that they have no personality to assail the Absolute
6 Exh. “6”; Records, p. 180.

7 Magdalena stated in her deposition that respondents, who were her


Deed of Sale and the genuineness of the signature of
second cousins, allowed her to stay in the house for as long as she Magdalena Rondael.
Petitioners assert that the issue raised in the trial court
454
was whether Magdalena Rondael could sell the property
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
despite the lived. The disputed Deed of Sale conveyed Lot 209-
Garrido vs. Court of Appeals A as well as the house erected thereon.
being paid. In reply, respondents showed him the Deed of _________________
Absolute Sale signed by his parents-in-law and it was only
then that he came to know that Lot 209-A no longer belonged 8 Records, pp. 1-6; Annex “A,” Complaint.
Decision by Judge Sixto R. Guanzon; Records, pp. 233-241.
to his in-laws.
9

10 CA-G.R. CV No. 23183, Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, ponente and

On 28 October 1985 petitioners Coloma Daguro and Alberto concurred in by Justices Arturo B. Buena and Cancio C. Garcia; Rollo, p. 39.
Garrido filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of 11 Id., p. 43.

Iloilo City for annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Lot 455
209-A, reconveyance and damages claiming that the deed was VOL. 236, SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 455
Garrido vs. Court of Appeals 12 Medida v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98334, 8 May 1992, 208 SCRA
887; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
prohibition in the deed of donation. In ruling that they were 77425, 19 June 1991, 198 SCRA 300; Philippine Commercial and Industrial
incapacitated to question the non-observance of the condition, Bank v. Court of Appeals, No. L-34959, 18 March 1988, 159 SCRA 24.
respondent court went beyond the issue, hence, exceeded its 13 Rollo, p. 47.

jurisdiction. 456
We find for respondents. Petitioners have no personality to 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
question the violation of the restriction because they are not Garrido vs. Court of Appeals
heirs of the donor. When the donee fails to comply with any of evidence within the purview of Sec. 1, par. (b), Rule 37, of the
the conditions imposed by the donor, it is the donor who has Rules of Court. Petitioners should have thought of having the
the right to impugn the validity of the transaction affecting signature of Magdalena Rondael on the deed of sale examined
the donated property, conformably with Art. 764 of the Civil when the case was still with the trial court. Nothing would
Code, which provides that the right to revoke may be have stopped them from doing so. Hence, it is now late, too late
transmitted to the heirs of the donor and may be exercised in fact, to present it before this Court.
against the heirs of the donee, and the action prescribes four Petitioners’ reliance on the NBI report as basis for new trial
years after the violation of the condition. on the ground of “newly discovered evidence” is a mistake. In
Petitioners’ lack of capacity to question the non-compliance the first place, the rule is explicit that a motion for new trial
with the condition is intimately connected with the issue should be filed before the trial court and within the period for
regarding the validity of the sale on account of the prohibition appeal. In the second place, in order that a particular piece of
in the deed of donation. Thus, we have established the rule evidence may be properly regarded as “newly discovered” for
that an unassigned error closely related to an error properly the purpose of granting new trial, the following requisites
assigned, or upon which the determination of the question must concur: (a) the evidence had been discovered after trial;
properly assigned is dependent, may be considered by the (b) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced
appellate court. 12
during trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
Petitioners also submit that the finding of the appellate and, (c) the evidence is material and not merely corroborative,
court that the signature of Magdalena Rondael in the Deed of cumulative or impeaching and is of such weight that if
Absolute Sale is genuine has been overtaken by events. In a admitted would probably alter the result. At the pith of these
14

letter dated 1 August 1991, the Regional Director of the NBI, requirements is that what is essential is not so much the time
Iloilo City, furnished the Iloilo City Prosecutor with a copy of when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the
NBI Questioned Document Report No. 413-791 dated 23 July time when it first came to the knowledge of the party now
1991, purporting to show that the questioned signature as well submitting it; rather, that the offering party had exercised
as the standard/ sample signatures of the deceased Magdalena reasonable diligence in producing or locating such evidence
Rondael were not written by one and the same person, hence,
13
before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it.
a forgery. The NBI report does not qualify as newly discovered evidence
Admittedly, the NBI report was never adduced before the because the second requirement was not complied with.
lower courts; in fact, it is presented for the first time and only Petitioners did not exercise reasonable diligence in procuring
before this Court. Obviously, this is not a newly discovered such evidence before or during trial. By their own admission,
_________________
the Fiscal sought NBI assistance only after the trial of the the signatures presented as bases for comparison are
case. They could have done so themselves when their case was themselves genuine. On the other hand, the Deed of Absolute
tried. Besides, when the City Prosecutor requested the NBI for Sale is a notarized document which carries the evidentiary
a handwriting examination in connection with petitioners’ weight conferred upon such public document with respect to
criminal complaint for falsification against respondents, the its due execution.
initial response of the NBI was: “no definite opinion can be WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the
rendered on the matter due to lack of sufficient basis Court of Appeals of 27 February 1991 as well as its resolution
necessary for a scientific comparative denying reconsideration thereof is AFFIRMED.
_______________ SO ORDERED.
14 Tumang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82072, 17 April 1989, 172 SCRA
Davide, Jr., Quiason and Kapunan, JJ.,concur.
328; Velasco v. Ortiz, G.R. No. 51973, 16 April 1990, 184 SCRA 303. Cruz, (Chairman), J., On leave.
457 Petition denied. Judgment affirmed.
VOL. 236, SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 457 Notes.—An unregistered deed of donation is not binding on
Garrido vs. Court of Appeals third persons. (Sales vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA
examination.” From there it can be deduced that petitioners
15 858 [1992])
did not submit adequate documents before the NBI at the first Donation is an act of liberality and never obligatory. (Tuzon
instance, thus showing their want of reasonable diligence in vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 739 [1992])
_______________
procuring the evidence they needed for a new trial.
We accord finality to the finding of respondent court, 15 Rollo, p. 42.
supported as it is by substantial evidence, that the alleged 16 Records, p. 187.
discrepancy between the signature of Magdalena Rondael 17 Id., pp. 100-101.

appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale and her signatures on 458


the Conditional Deed of Sale, petition to cancel the annotation
prohibiting the sale of the donated property, petitioners’ reply 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
to opposition, transcript of her deposition dated 24 January
16 People vs. Tiongco
1979, and the deed of sale of Lot 209-B, does not exist. Having Result of paraffin test is not newly discovered evidence.
alleged forgery, petitioners had the burden of proof. Here, they (People vs. Ducay, 225 SCRA 1 [1993])
utterly failed. They even attached to their complaint five
receipts purportedly signed by Magdalena but, except for one ——o0o——
which was signed “Magdalena Rondael,” said receipts were
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
signed “Magdalena Daguro.” Besides, there is no showing that
17