Alfaro v.
CA
GR# 162864 | 519 SCRA 270| March 28, 2007
Petitioner: SPS. PEBLIA and PROSPEROUS ALFARO
Respondent: HON. CA, SPS. OLEGARIO and CECILIA BAGANO
FACTS
- Sps. Bagano filed a complaint against Sps. Alfaro for Declaration of Nullity
of Sale before the RTC of Cebu. In the complaint, Bagano alleged that
they were the previous registered owners of the subject lot; that they
executed a REM over the lot in favor of Alfaro to secure payment of an
obligation; that upon payment of the mortgage debt, a Cancellation and
Discharge of Mortgage was executed; that when Bagano demanded the
return of their title, Alfaro refused, prompting the former to check with the
Register of Deeds.
- Upon verification, respondents learned that their title had already been
cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT issued in the name of Alfaro by virtue of
a spurious Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Bagano.
- Bagano presented Varona as an expert witness on their behalf. Varona
affirmed the conclusion embodied in his Report that the questioned
signatures appearing on Exhibit B (Copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale)
were forged.
- On the same trial date, Alfaro manifested their intention that Varona
should examine another set of documents where they alleged contain the
genuine signature of Bagano. At the continuation of the cross-
examination, Varona examined, among others, Exh. 13 (Another copy of
the Deed of Absolute Sale), and stated that the signatures on the
documents were genuine and affixed by the herein parties.
- According to the documents/evidence, Bagano had initially mortgaged the
lots to Alfaro, as evidenced by the REM, then later Bagano sold different
lots by 6 deeds of conditional sale in favour of Alfaro, where the latter
made downpayment. Thereafter, Alfaro, discovered that Bagano was also
selling the lots on instalment basis to other parties. To appease Alfaro,
Bagano sold them the lot which was evidenced by a Deed of Absolute
Sale.
- RTC ruled in favor of Alfaro and dismissed the Complaint because Varona
had retracted his first opinion when he came out with his second opinion.
- CA reversed the decision, and said that Varona did not actually receive
and examine the original Deed of Sale (Exh. 13) because the written report
which contained conclusions was not presented in evidence.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
1. W/N the fact that the signatures in the copy of the deed of absolute sale
would render it spurious?
RULING & RATIO
- NO
• When a document in two or more copies is executed at or about the same
time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
originals. Original does not mean the first paper written, in contrast to a
copy or transcript made later. The original depends upon the issue to be
proved. It is immaterial whether that document was written before or after
another, was copied from another, or was itself used to copy from,as long
as its contents are the subject of inquiry. Hence, one or some of these
copies are still considered as originals, and they have equal claims to
authenticity.
• THE RTC WAS WRONG because it cannot properly speak of retraction
because Varona examined two different standard signatures and two
different specimen signatures. Due to the different findings, this rendered
Varona’s testimony as unconvincing. Thereby leaving the presumption of
validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale presented by Alfaro. It was the
burden of Bagano to proved the forgery and they failed with bringing
Varano as an expert witness.
• THE CA WAS WRONG in its conclusion to have the sale annulled
because the burden of proving the forgery was never achieved by the
Bagano.
• In fact the signatures in the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. 13) was
compared with the REM, and the signatures were found to be the same,
where the latter document was also notarized which enjoys the
presumption of validity.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
is SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 12, is
REINSTATED.